Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to. [One with an Amendment.]

UNITED KINGDOM OIL PIPELINES BILL

Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

BLACKFRIARS BRIDGEHEAD IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

HOVE CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

TEES AND HARTLEPOOLS PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]

(Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified).

Verbal Amendments made to the Bill; Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

Address for Return,
of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict. c. 77, during 1965."—[Miss Bacon.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Retirement Pensioners

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Social Security what proposals she has to protect retirement pensioners from the effects of recent Government measures.

The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): The measures recently announced are intended to stabilise prices and strengthen the economy. Like all other members of the community, pensioners stand to gain from them. Retirement pensioners are still appreciably better off as a result of the measures introduced since we took office, and the least well-off among them will benefit from the provisions of the Ministry of Social Security Act which are due to come into force later this year.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While offering the right hon. Lady good wishes in her newly-designated office, may I ask her whether she is aware that the Selective Employment Tax will raise the cost of food and that the use of the regulator will raise the cost of other necessities? Cannot she hold out some hope that the most vunerable sections of the community will be protected against the consequent price increases?

Miss Herbison: It is expected that the measures which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned may bring about an increase of 1½ per cent. in the index of retail prices—that is, a little over 1s. on the single pensioner rate. But the fact that the Government have taken measures to stabilise the prices of goods and services will benefit pensioners almost more than anyone else in the country.

Sir Knox Cunningham: The right hon. Lady expects that the percentage increase


will be 1½ per cent. If it is much more, will she take action and give assistance?

Miss Herbison: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not paid attention to the second half of my reply, that the other steps which the Government have proposed will protect the pensioners.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Minister of Social Security what would be the rates of National Insurance retirement pensions at the latest available date if these rates had been linked to average male industrial earnings following the last pensions increase.

Miss Herbison: On the basis of the Ministry of Labour's inquiries into average earnings in April, 1965, and April, 1966, 85s. 8d. for a single person and 139s. 3d. for a couple.

Mr. Macmillan: Does not the right hon. Lady realise that, in allowing the pension to drop so much in purchasing power at a time when wages are increasing, she is allowing the Government to be in direct breach of their election pledges, which stated that not only would the pension be raised, but the higher level of the pensioner would be maintained as a priority, despite any economic difficulty?

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member will be aware that, in spite of our economic difficulties, no step has been taken to interfere with the social priorities for those in greatest need. He may not be aware that, between April, 1965, and April, 1966, the average earnings rose by just over 7 per cent. In a period for which his own Government were responsible, April, 1955, to April, 1956, they rose by a greater amount, by 8 per cent., yet it was not until 1958 that his Government decided to raise the pensions. I can assure him that we shall do better than that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that, over the whole period of Conservative rule, the rate of pensions and the real value of pensions rose considerably more, in terms of percentages, than earnings?

Miss Herbison: It is true during that period, but we had to wait for the return of a Labour Government to give

them, compared with average earnings, a little more than they had had in 1946.

Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend remember that average male industrial earnings fluctuate according to the amount of overtime worked in industry and that it would be a wrong principle to tie ourselves to this absolutely, as there can be a drop?

Miss Herbison: This is very true, but until this present moment, it has been much better to tie the pensions to average earnings than to increases in the cost of living. Old people do much better.

War Disablement Pensioners

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Social Security if she is aware that the decision not to disregard war disability pensions and allowances for purposes of claiming rate rebate has the effect of penalising those who are most severely disabled; whether she will make such adjustments to allowances as are necessary in order to maintain the principle that compensation given to the war disabled remains inviolable.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Social Security whether, since the whole of any war disability pension has to be taken into account in assessing income, she will increase pensions so as to compensate for the loss of rate rebate by severely disabled war pensioners.

Miss Herbison: Because the scheme gives rates relief to those on low incomes it does not follow that it penalises others whose incomes are higher. The answer to the second part of Question No. 2 and to Question No. 5 is, "No, Sir".

Mr. Braine: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that war disability pensions are not income but compensation for specific injuries sustained in the service of one's country, and that this principle has been overthrown by the Rating Act? Is she telling the House that she does not intend to do anything to maintain a principle which has hitherto been accepted by all Governments?

Miss Herbison: Neither the Government nor I agree that a principle has been overthrown by the Rating Act. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made it quite clear


that the rate rebate scheme is a tax concession and not a form of social security benefit which is capable of adjustment to individual circumstances.

Mr. Tilney: Is the right hon. Lady saying that this tax concession can be applied, but not to those who have been disabled in the service of their country?

Miss Herbison: No, I am not implying that. The whole of the war disability pension is left out of account as income for Income Tax purposes. That situation still obtains.

Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Lady have another look at this matter? It is not something to be taken up just by one side of the House. Members on both sides are concerned about this. Will she consider the question again, bearing in mind that, although this is a concession, our present procedure means that to some extent people in receipt of war disability pensions are excluded to some extent from this concession, and that many of us are concerned about it?

Miss Herbison: Those whose incomes fall within the concessions laid down in the Rating Act receive the concession, whether or not they are war disability pensioners. The important thing that the ex-Service world wants to know is that the situation that has obtained up to the present, under which income from war disability pensions is completely free of Income Tax, will continue.

Sir R. Cary: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the effect of the Rating Act is to dissipate the trust which has existed between limbless ex-Service men and Governments ever since 1918? Is she also aware of the fact that there is a Motion on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of hon. Members of all parties asking for an early discussion of this matter with her Department on the Floor of the House?

Miss Herbison: I am not aware that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is correct. I stress that what the ex-Service world wants to be assured of—and it has had this assurance from the Government—is that the situation that now obtains in respect of their income from war disability pensions and Income Tax shall continue.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will take action to ensure that war disablement pensions are not related to financial hardship.

Miss Herbison: No action is necessary. Such pensions are related to the degree of war disablement, not to financial hardship.

Mr. Tilney: Does not what the Minister has just said conflict with what she said in answer to a previous Question? Surely those who have suffered war disability and have received pensions are not being put on the same basis of rate rebate as those with low incomes?

Miss Herbison: At present there are very great preferences for the war disabled and we, as a Government, are determined to continue with those preferences. The award of a war disablement pension itself—and this is the real answer to the question—is in no way affected by the pensioner's financial resources. Whatever his earnings or income, it makes no difference to the pension paid to him. That will continue to be the position.

Mr. Braine: Is not the Minister seized of the fact that the preferences to which she has just referred operate in exactly the opposite direction in relation to rate rebates, for the simple reason that the more disabled a man is the higher are his allowances and the greater the likelihood of his being disadvantaged by the scheme? Will not she look into this question again?

Miss Herbison: By Government action this year the more seriously disabled war pensioners are already receiving, on top of their war pensions and other allowances, an extra £3 a week, which is much more than any rate rebate would give to the seriously disabled.

Long-term Sick

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she is yet ready to bring forward her proposals for improving the benefits payable to the long-term sick.

Miss Herbison: No, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Lady give any indication when she


will be in a position to tell the House what her proposal is?

Miss Herbison: First of all, the Ministry of Social Security Act makes additional provision for many of the present long-term sick. I am only too well aware that this is just a small step forward. There is still much to be done, and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that many problems still have to be examined. In the review we are examining all of those problems in order to try to find solutions.

Emphysema

Mr. McGuire: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will seek to amend the National Insurance (Industrial Injury) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations, 1959, so as to provide that emphysema is included in the list of prescribed diseases.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Harold Davies): The term emphysema embraces a number of respiratory conditions, some of which are accepted as part of the pneumoconiosis disease process and taken into account in assessing disablement. On present evidence, the disease in general does not satisfy the requirements for prescription laid down in the Industrial Injuries Act.

Mr. McGuire: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people are concerned at the fact that this long overdue reform has not been brought in by the Labour Government? Can he tell me whether any investigations have been going on into the question of scheduling an industry associated with the disease rather than the disease itself?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend, together with most people on both sides of the House who are interested in this matter, will be aware that the Ministry has been concerned with this problem for a long time. Some types of emphysema are known to occur in association with pneumoconiosis and are accepted as part of the pneumoconiosis disease process. In these circumstances the statutory authorities include any disablement due to these forms of emphysema in assessing disablement due to the prescribed disease. Naturally, as is known by my hon. Friend and others who are interested in mining,

we are continuously trying to solve this very difficult problem.

Pensions and Benefits

Mr. Freeson: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will introduce a further increase in pensions for retired persons, widows and other pensioners, pending major reforms in the system of social security, together with an equivalent increase in allowances for such people applying to the National Assistance Board.

Miss Herbison: I have little to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend's Question on these matters on 2nd May, except that higher rates of non-contributory benefits under the Ministry of Social Security Act will come into force later this year.

Mr. Freeson: Will my right hon. Friend give some indication when the benefit of the general reform which is now pending is likely to come into operation? Will she bear in mind the fact that no matter how much we have improved the rate of benefit for retirement pensioners and others in the last year or so there has been a decrease in the value of the pensions that they are receiving, which should be made good at the earliest opportunity?

Miss Herbison: The action taken by the Government so far has proved clearly to the House and the country that we have not waited until the completion of the review before making improvements. I can assure my hon. Friend that provision is made in the National Plan for increases. As soon as the Government consider that the time is appropriate the increases will be made without waiting until the review is completed. I believe that is what my hon. Friend really wants to know.

Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility that at one time in the year, around Christmas, people receiving the extra supplement under the new Measure should receive an extra £4 or £5 a week, on the lines of what happened at the end of 1964? Does not she agree that this would be one way of alleviating hardship?

Miss Herbison: The position at the end of 1964 was very different from what


the position will be at the end of 1966—and it will be all to the good of our pensioners, because from 28th November of this year those receiving supplementary pensions will be getting an increase under the Social Security Act. This time there is no need to take the very special measures that, as a Minister, I felt I had to take at the end of 1964.

Rent Allowances

Mr. Freeson: asked the Minister of Social Security what instructions have been issued to officers of the National Assistance Board regarding increases in rent allowances to retired persons, widows and others in need whose rents may be increased by rent officers or rent assessment committees following referral by landlords when repairs or other basic improvements have been carried out.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): If, as will usually be the case, the existing rent is already being met in the Board's allowance, any increase of this kind would be allowed for.

Mr. Freeson: I thank my hon. Friend for that sympathetic reply. Will he bear in mind that, over the next one or two years, under the procedure laid down in the 1965 Rent Act, there is bound to be a growing number of cases in which rent will be increased as a result of that procedure and as a result of improvements to property being put before the local rent officers and rent assessment committees? Will he prepare the divisions within his Department for the necessary applications and encourage them to be made by the pensioners concerned?

Mr. Pentland: Yes, Sir, and if my hon. Friend has in mind any case in regard to this, I should be glad to look into it.

Retirement Pensioners (Earnings Rule)

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Social Security when she now expects to receive the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the earnings rule for retirement pensioners.

Miss Herbison: As I told the hon. Gentleman last week, the Committee is treating this question as one of urgency. But it must be for it to decide when it

can submit its Report after consideration of all the issues in the light of the representations and evidence it has received.

Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Lady realise that that is a very disappointing reply, in view of the fact that she told the House last week that the Committee was sitting on no less than two days last week, presumably to get its Report out with speed? Would she give us two assurances—first, that when she gets the Report, it will be published in the usual way, and, second, that she will act speedily on it in view of the fact that it is well over two years since any change has been made in the earnings rule for retirement pensioners?

Miss Herbison: I can give a categorical assurance to the first question. When the Report comes, it will be published. But the hon. Member ought to know that the questions which are at present before the Committee present technical and very complicated problems. It is not only the level of earnings which it has been asked to examine. Action on the Report will be for the Government as a whole.

Industrial Injuries Fund

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Social Security what long-term proposals she has for using the repeated annual surplus of the Industrial Injuries Fund.

Mr. Harold Davies: The surpluses will continue to be used for the purpose for which they are being accumulated, namely to earn interest to help meet the eventual commitments of the scheme.

Mr. Archer: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him to tell the House whether there is any reason to believe that the rate of industrial accidents will rise to such an extent that this will be required in due course?

Mr. Davies: The Industrial Injuries Fund has to be prepared for any contingency and the fact, of which many hon. Members will be aware, is that expenditure from the Fund is already higher than the income by way of contributions and Exchequer supplement. In the first full year of 1949–50, the income of the Fund from contributions and Exchequer supplements was £36 million, against an expenditure of only £14 million, but in


1964–65, the latest available figures show that the income was £82 million, while the expenditure was £86 million. Consequently, a wise Government, whatever politics they may have, must be aware of these contingencies and prepared for further industrial problems.

Mesothelioma

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she proposes to schedule the disease known as mesothelioma as an industrial disease of asbestos workers, for the purpose of industrial injuries benefits.

Miss Herbison: It has now been established that this disease satisfies the statutory conditions for prescription and I am making Regulations today to come into operation on 22nd August.

Mr. Driberg: While warmly welcoming that announcement, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the peritoneal form of this disease will be covered in her Regulations? Also, is this decision in a sense retrospective, in that people suffering from the disease who were debarred from benefit previously will now be able to claim again?

Miss Herbison: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the Answer to both his Questions is, "Yes".

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

War Disablement Pensioners (Vehicle Conversion)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Minister of Health whether he will now consider revising the regulations governing the circumstances whereby the cost of converting vehicles to hand controls for war-disabled pensioners can be borne by his Department.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Longhlin): My right hon. Friend will be considering this matter in the course of his current review of our vehicle services for the disabled.

Mrs. Knight: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. While he is considering these matters, would he bear in mind also that the Minister of Transport forbids severely war-disabled pensioners to drive

a car unless it has been converted to hand controls? Would he not agree that to base the permission for such conversion on whether the amputation is above the knee or two inches below is both mean and harsh?

Mr. Longhlin: I am not prepared to enter into dispute with the hon. Lady as to whether some of the regulations administered by the preceding Government were harsh or otherwise. All I can say is that we are considering the matter. The difficulty is that it involves a new principle but we will look at it while we are doing the whole job.

Mr. Braine: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a reasonable request, bearing in mind that the last major review took place in the summer of 1964? Could he give some information about when the current review is likely to be presented to the House?

Mr. Loughlin: It may be a reasonable request and the last review may have taken place in 1964, but it did not include this matter. We will complete the review as quickly as possible; I am not prepared to go further than that today.

Pharmacists (Selective Employment Tax)

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Health whether he will ensure by administrative means that any Selective Employment Tax paid in respect of pharmacists employed for the purpose of dispensing prescriptions under the National Health Service will be refunded in full through the system of chemists' remuneration.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) on 21st June.

Mr. Holland: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance at this stage? Can he envisage administrative means of achieving this without creating anomalies between one chemist and another?

Mr. Robinson: I told the hon. Member for Guildford that there is an inquiry into dispensing costs of retail chemists in progress. In the course of this inquiry


we shall consider whether any adjustment in remuneration is called for either because of the Selective Employment Tax or for any other reason.

Health and Welfare Programmes (Capital Expenditure)

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give details of the £3 million cuts which are to be made in local authority health and welfare programmes.

Mr. K. Robinson: I intend to secure the necessary reduction of capital expenditure in 1967–68 by limiting the total value of loan sanctions issued during the course of 1966–67 to the reduced figure.

Mr. Dean: Can the Minister give a few more details? As he is well aware, many people are disturbed that this one part of the Health Service has been singled out for cuts. Will he give any assurance, in particular, that projects concerning accommodation for old people will not be affected by the cuts?

Mr. Robinson: I am very happy to give the hon. Gentleman more details. The reduction is £2·9 million and this is rather less than 10 per cent. of the original planned total. Perhaps I should explain to the hon. Member that estimates for next year are based on the loan sanctions made during the current year. Certainly I am giving priority to old people's homes, the erection of which will lead to the closure of ex-Public Assistance institutions. I am also giving priority to mental health projects and health centres.

Mr. Braine: Is the Minister aware that nobody can understand why he is happy to give those details? Is it not a fact that a substantial part of these cuts falls upon the provision of welfare homes for the elderly? This is already throwing some local health authorities out of gear with their programmes. Does he consider it wise and socially just, and what representations did he make on the subject to his colleagues?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member would rot expect me to answer the last part of the supplementary question. I am only too happy to be able to correct the misunderstanding on the part of hon. Members opposite who seem to regard

this as a much more serious cut than in fact it is. Even after the reduction, the figure for next year will be higher than that for the current year, because of the fact that it is based on loan sanctions in the previous year.

Invalid Cars

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the number of complaints concerning the functioning of the Morris 1000 invalid cars supplied to disabled persons; and what steps he is taking to ensure the provision of satisfactory vehicles.

Mr. Loughlin: Complaints about these cars are rare and my right hon. Friend is satisfied with their performance as invalid vehicles.

Mr. Hynd: Does the Minister accept that if they are rare, the majority must have occurred in or around my constituency, as I have had repeated complaints, some of which I have drawn to his attention? Will he look carefully to make sure that a satisfactory service is given by these cars?

Mr. Loughlin: I am rather surprised. One particular case was raised with me by the hon. Gentleman, but I ought to make it clear that the Morris 1000 has proved a very reliable vehicle as far as we are concerned. I think that most of us who have bought cars could accept that occasionally there is a bad vehicle. No matter what happens we may come across what I call a "rogue elephant" car from the motor car industry. We are doing whatever we possibly can to see that the manufacturers attend to the problems on this particular vehicle.

Cervical Cancer Tests

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that special difficulties in obtaining cervical smears are being experienced in certain areas by women at risk; and if he will give special attention to these areas with a view to resolving the difficulties.

Mr. Loughlin: We are aware that some areas are less advanced than others in providing this service, and my right hon. Friend will be considering what further steps may be necessary in the light of information now being received.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that this appears to be a major weakness in the Health Service? In certain areas such as Lutterworth, Dover, Eastbourne and parts of the West Country, all local efforts, including those by women at risk in the area, have so far failed to get a service established? Could the Minister make some inquiries to discover what are the difficulties and how we can help remove them?

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend gave me prior information about Lutterworth and I am rather surprised that she includes it, because the hospital laboratories in Leicester are well able to examine a larger number of smears than the numbers referred to them at present by general practitioners and a voluntary organisation. The Leicestershire County Council has submitted formal proposals for the establishment of a smear-taking service in the county. As for the others, we admit that there are variations. I did not have much prior notice of the question and therefore could not make my investigations in time, but my hon. Friend will be glad to know that there has been a considerable improvement in the service and that we intend to issue a circular of guidance on the expansion of the service to authorities.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would the Minister encourage the hospitals to continue this tendency to take routine smears from patients attending gynaecological and post-natal clinics? Will the Minister ensure that all patients who have smears taken in this way are, first, informed that the tests have taken place and, secondly, are told, preferably in writing, the result of the tests?

Mr. Loughlin: I believe that the taking of smears in gynaecological cases is normally done. We will consider the other point which my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. John Wells: As the Minister said in his original Answer that this is dealt with from the point of view of various areas and is completely general, would he set out clearly in the OFFICIAL REPORT the situation in different areas of the country?

Mr. Loughlin: That is perhaps asking for rather too much. We will certainly

consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I could not promise to do what he asks.

Prescriptions (Proprietary Drugs)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Minister of Health what is his estimate of the approximate saving to annual National Health Service costs if doctors prescribed meprobamate, paracetamol, prednisolone, bendrofluazide and phenoxymethyl penicillin instead of their proprietary equivalents.

Mr. K. Robinson: The theoretical saving in 1965 would have been about £250,000, almost all of which would have been accounted for by paracetamol.

Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these are mere examples of how we might achieve a considerable saving of public funds? Will he consider entering into consultations with the appropriate authorities to enable us to make these economies without damaging the Health Service?

Mr. Robinson: If a doctor considers that a proprietary form of drug is necessary for the treatment of his patient, he has the right to prescribe it, and I do not think it would be compatible with this right to seek to compel doctors to prescribe by approved names. On a number of occasions doctors have been asked to do this when it was thought desirable.

Mr. Braine: While entirely agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks, may I ask him to confirm that the prices for branded drugs supplied to the National Health Service have been agreed with his Ministry—prices satisfactory to the Ministry—taking into account the research expenditure undertaken here and overseas by the manufacturers in question? Should we not get this matter into perspective?

Mr. Robinson: We are negotiating the prices for these proprietary drugs under the voluntary price regulation scheme. Perhaps it is relevant to say at this point that the price of the most common preparatory equivalent of paracetamol was reduced by 15 per cent. as a result of these negotiations last October.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend consider consulting with the medical profession to see if it would be


possible to devise a system by which the cheapest equivalent preparation would be supplied by the chemist, unless the doctor specifically requested a particular manufacturer's product, as from the point of view of treatment this would produce considerable savings at no cost to the patient?

Mr. Robinson: This has been considered. I am not sure that it would produce as considerable a saving as my hon. Friend thinks. However, this is another matter that comes within the ambit of the consideration of the Sainsbury Committee.

Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Health what representations have been made by the medical profession to the effect that many doctors have already entered into expenditure commitments as a result of the recent agreement on remuneration; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that doctors can honour these commitments.

Mr. Scott: asked the Minister of Health what arrangements he is making to mitigate the effect of the wages standstill upon doctors.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Minister of Health whether the Government's financial measures and restrictions will affect increases in doctors' and dentists' remuneration.

Mr. K. Robinson: In common with others to whom increases have not yet been paid, hospital doctors, hospital dentists, and general medical practitioners are affected by the incomes standstill. The expenses of practitioners are, however, due to be reimbursed and the arrangements for payment during the standstill period are being designed to take fully into account any increase in those expenses overall. These arrangements will include special provision for certain expenses incurred on additional ancillary help employed in anticipation of the new methods of remuneration. I am discussing with the profession other cases of specific commitment which will result in a reduction of net income if no special arrangements are made.

Mr. Braine: Is the Minister aware that this really is not good enough? Does he

not realise that doctors have been working for four months on the basis of a new contract, relying on the word of the Prime Minister in this House, and that it was only a technical difficulty which prevented them from being paid at the end of June? Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean with the House and say frankly whether he made any representations on this subject to the Prime Minister concerning what I can only describe as a shocking breach of faith?

Mr. Robinson: I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the proceedings in the Council of the British Medical Association. Of course I am conscious of the difficulties in which some doctors find themselves as a result of the incomes standstill. I should like to pay a tribute to the responsible attitude shown by the representatives of the profession in accepting, as they have done, with qualifications, the deferment of the Review Body's award in the national interest. I should also like to pay tribute to the leadership which they have shown on this occasion.

Mr. Scott: Can the Minister explain how the effective date of this award, which was first 1st April—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not reading—can be affected by a freeze announced on 20th July? Would the right hon. Gentleman also explain what will happen if a doctor has entered into a contract whereby a part-time worker will now work full-time for him? Will that be affected by the freeze or will the doctor get the extra money in view of the extra commitment into which he has entered?

Mr. Robinson: If I have understood the hon. Gentleman's example aright, the answer is "Yes". As long as the hours have been increased, then I think that that would be covered by the sentence in the middle of my original Answer. To answer the first part of his supplementary question is perfectly simple. The Prime Minister made it clear that the incomes standstill relates to increases negotiated but not yet implemented.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain the position of doctors who were on the point of, but have not yet started, operating group practice schemes, remembering the


heavy capital expenditure involved? Since doctors may have been on the point of doing this, with the help of the Ministry's loans scheme, taking into account the higher remuneration, will such doctors be covered by the right hon. Gentleman's last reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) and are negotiations on these matters taking place with the profession? Can the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the payment will not be deferred unduly long, so that doctors may be enabled to go ahead with their plans while waiting for the higher income?

Mr. Robinson: The case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will certainly be among those which I will be discussing with the leaders of the profession later this week. The answer to his question about implementation is quite clear. The operative date is now 1st October, and payment will now be made at the beginning of January next.

Mr. Robert Davies: Will my right hon. Friend take particular account of the difficulties of junior hospital staff, who receive very small salaries, and who also undertook additional commitments in the belief that the pay award which was to be effective from 1st April would, in fact, be awarded?

Mr. Robinson: I have very great sympathy with the position of junior doctors in hospitals. The position is that no exception to the standstill can be made, although I am looking to see whether anything can be done, consistently with the White Paper, to mitigate cases of hardship as a result of commitments having been entered into in the belief that the higher rates of pay would be forthcoming shortly, with effect from 1st April last.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend realise that in the case of underpaid junior hospital staff there must in every case be a measure of hardship? Can he hold out any hope of mitigating the present policy of the standstill arrangements, as applied to doctors as a whole, in the case of junior staff?

Mr. Robinson: I do not think that one can make any exceptions to the standstill. That was made abundantly clear. However, it is the case that the special position of junior hospital doc-

tors was recognised by a very substantial increase recommended by the Review Body and accepted by the Government.

Disabled People (Vehicles)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of magistrates' court proceedings taken against Mrs. Freda Blyth of Bracknell, on 2nd August, he will authorise the immediate issue to her of an adapted minicar.

Mr. Loughlin: No, Sir.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Has the Parliamentary Secretary observed that a great wave of sympathy has been expressed for this lady, that she has been provided with a car which has been subscribed for, including subscriptions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and does he not feel rather ashamed that public opinion should be so far ahead of the Government?

Mr. Loughlin: No, Sir. I want to make it absolutely clear that I have the greatest possible sympathy with this lady, and with a lot of other persons in similar circumstances who are disabled. I am not ashamed that public opinion is in advance of me, because we are tackling this problem, when it could have been tackled in 1964.

Miss Pike: But does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that this is the very sort of case that would be discovered by the type of co-ordinated arrangements we proposed, whereby someone would have been going round looking for cases of need under a more flexible service? Is not this the very sort of problem we all want to solve as quickly as we possibly can?

Mr. Loughlin: If the hon. Lady recognised that this problem existed over all those years, I cannot understand why she and her right hon. Friends could not have solved it.

Miss Pike: Will the Minister listen to the question I am putting to him? Does he not agree that under the type of arrangement we have proposed people would have the responsibility to go out and find this kind of need? I believe that the hon. Gentleman would have tried to do something about this case had he known about it. If we could go


out and find this kind of need, we could have more flexible arrangements.

Mr. Loughlin: But these cases arose during the period prior to 1964, and all the arrangements to which the hon. Lady now refers were not necessary to find this case.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In view of the unsympathetic nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to provide specially adapted cars rather than invalid tricycles to paraplegic mothers of young children.

Mr. Loughlin: This is one of the matters to be considered in the current review of vehicles for the disabled.

Mr. Fortescue: In the light of the conditions revealed in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), and in view of the fact that the difference in cost between the almost antediluvian invalid tricycle and the current minicar specially adapted for paraplegics is now very small, will the Minister consider the total abolition of tricycles and the issue of minicars in all cases?

Mr. Loughlin: We may consider the abolition of the tricycles, but I should not like the impression to circulate that these vehicles are antediluvian. Very many thousands of patients are very grateful that we have this type of vehicle, and even were we to issue cars, tricycles would be required in some cases.

National Health Service Employees (Pay)

Miss Pike: asked the Minister of Health how wage or salary increases of those working in the National Health Service, which have either been negotiated or are being negotiated, will be affected by the Government's recent financial measures.

Mr. K. Robinson: Where agreements had been reached in the Whitley Councils but not implemented on or before 20th July, their implementation will be deferred in accordance with the White Paper on the Prices and Incomes Standstill. Where negotiations were still in progress, I will

expect them to be conducted by the Whitley Councils in the light of the more stringent criteria foreshadowed in the White Paper.

Miss Pike: Does the Minister recognise that these people would find it much easier to accept the necessity for this sacrifice if the Government would give up their obstinate adherence to the principle of universality, which is undermining so much financial confidence, lack of which is causing the problem at the present time?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Lady may be interested to know that when I met the chairmen of the staff sides of the Whitley Councils in order to tell them of the Government's policy, this point was not raised by any of those present, all of whom accepted the regrettable necessity for this policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham (Miss Rogers)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Minister of Health why the salary of Miss S. A. Rogers, a State Registered Nurse employed at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, dropped from £725 per annum on 1st December, 1965, to £545 per annum on 1st January, 1966.

Mr. Loughlin: Miss Rogers decided to undertake midwifery training and received the appropriate training allowance—£545 per annum—for a pupil midwife who is already a State registered nurse.

Mrs. Knight: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a severe shortage of midwives? Would he not agree that it hardly encourages recruitment if a nurse who has already achieved her S.R.N. and who then goes on to midwifery training must accept a drop in salary of £180 during the 12 months of that training?

Mr. Loughlin: It may appear so, but if a State registered nurse were seconded for midwifery training by the hospital concerned, she would, of course, receive her full wages during that period. There is, I suggest, an essential difference where a person is securing an additional qualification. One has to be very careful then, because it does not necessarily


follow that this securing of an additional qualification, or two, will mean that that person will go into that speciality.

Mrs. Knight: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

Minor Operations (Waiting Time)

Mr. Scott: asked the Minister of Health what is the average length of waiting time for a non-urgent minor operation in the London area and the United Kingdom, respectively.

Mr. Loughlin: The time varies so much according to the operation that average figures would have little meaning, but such information as is available suggests that the waiting time for such operations is usually somewhat less in the Metropolitan Hospital Board regions than in the country as a whole.

Mr. Scott: Is it not true that in respect of this type of operation on children the waiting period is such that considerable anxiety is caused to parents? What is the Minister doing to secure a reduction in the waiting time?

Mr. Loughlin: That is hardly the Question put on the Order Paper. I agree that even if operations affect adults—quite apart from children—there is some anxiety on the part of the patients themselves and the relatives. I assure the hon. Member that as far as humanly possible, given staff and resources, we are doing what we can to deal with the problem.

Hospitals (New Extensions)

Miss Pike: asked the Minister of Health if he will give an assurance that new extensions to hospitals will not remain unused because of the refusal of his Department to grant the necessary finance.

Mr. K. Robinson: This would be my intention, but it is for hospital boards to decide how they allocate their total resources to the various parts of their services.

Miss Pike: May I draw the Minister's attention to the very valuable laboratory and research equipment lying idle at

Hammersmith Post-graduate Hospital? In view of the fact that the first National Plan reduced the proportion of the gross national product devoted to health, will the Minister give an assurance that in the revised edition of the National Plan there will be no further reductions? In the present difficult financial circumstances, is he thinking of having a national lottery to help the hospitals?

Mr. Robinson: The answer to the last part of the Question is, "No, Sir". I do not accept the hon. Lady's figures about a reduction in the share of the national resources going to health. This is a story which has been put out from the Opposition benches more than once and has been contradicted. I am happy to contradict it again. The hon. Lady raised a particular case involving Hammersmith Hospital. I have heard nothing about Hammersmith, but perhaps she would put the question on the Order Paper.

Architects (Whitley Council Committee)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take following representations made to him by the Association of Official Architects for the reconstitution of the National Health Service's Professional and Technical Council B Whitley Council Committee F.

Mr. Loughlin: The composition of the staff sides of the Whitley Council is a matter for them; my right hon. Friend has therefore conveyed the representations of the Association of Official Architects to the Staff Side of the Professional and Technical B Whitley Council.

Mr. Dance: While I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to stress to the Whitley Council that pretty well every architect employed in every regional board has signed the petition? It is important that they should know that.

Mr. Loughlin: No doubt the Whitley Council will take into account the hon. Member's observations, but this is a matter for the staff side of the Whitley Council. The hon. Member will be pleased to know that certain sub-committees are not necessarily composed wholly of the members of the staff side


and that members of organisations may be co-opted for special purposes and special considerations.

Hospitals (Brighton and Lewes)

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Minister of Health why the Regional Hospital Board's proposals for hospital developments in the Brighton and Lewes Group involve the wasteful duplication of expensive specialised medical services such as radiology and pathology and operating theatres; and who represented the authors of the alternative consultants' plan dated March, 1966, at the meeting of the Board on 16th April last.

Mr. K. Robinson: The regional hospital board's proposals do not involve the duplication of services but the replacement and expansion of existing services. Ten of the consultants concerned were present at the meeting with the board, which took place on 14th April last.

Sir T. Beamish: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a very important ingredient for the success of proposals of this kind is local good will? Is he aware that this is, unhappily, sadly lacking from the point of view of local public opinion and professional opinion? Does he not think, in these circumstances, that it is essential for him to hold a public inquiry, which I mention in Question No. 32, with a view to either justifying or modifying these proposals?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. While we, of course, want to carry local public opinion with us in local developments of this kind, there has been full consultation in this case. There will, I understand, be an opportunity to debate this matter later today, and I think that it would be better if we left the matter till then.

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Minister of Health on what date, and from what source, he received the consultants plan for hospital services in the Brighton and Lewes group; when, and by whom, he was informed that this plan has the overwhelming support of professional medical opinion in the area; and if he will arrange for a public inquiry at which the relative merits of this plan and the proposals of the regional hospital board can be compared.

Mr. K. Robinson: A memorandum was handed to me in December last by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) who informed me that the suggestions made had a large measure of local support. I see no purpose in further discussion of the alternatives.

Sir T. Beamish: Although, as the right hon. Gentleman said when replying to the last Question, this matter will be debated later today, will he at least give an assurance at this stage that he still has an open mind on the issue?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir, because I do not have an open mind on the matter. The contract for the Royal Sussex County Hospital has been let and work will start later this month.

Sir W. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the memorandum which I put before him has been revised since then and that I understand that it has been put before him again by another hon. Member?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. This is one of the matters which I propose to deal with in the debate later today.

Hospital Planning

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the division of opinion between the hospital staff in Brighton and the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, he will review the present system of hospital planning, with a view to introducing more adequate representation of local and municipal opinion in planning decisions.

Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir.

Victoria Hospital, Chelsea (Site)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement about the proposed use of the site of the Victoria Hospital, Tite Street, Chelsea.

Mr. K. Robinson: The site has been offered for the replacement of a convent, the existing site of which will be needed for the proposed grouping of postgraduate hospitals in Chelsea.

Mr. Worsley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long this hospital has been empty and unused at a time of shortage of hospital facilities in London?

Mr. Robinson: Perhaps I may first tell the hon. Gentleman that this site is not suitable for hospital purposes. It was closed in late 1964, after full consultation with all the appropriate local interests. Demolition started at the end of May this year, and should be completed by the end of the year.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Carcinogenic Substances Regulations

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made with the proposed Carcinogenic Substances (Prohibition) Regulations and the Carcinogenic Substances (Prohibition of Importation) Order.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): I expect to publish a statutory draft of the Carcinogenic Substances Regulations within the next few weeks.

Mrs. Butler: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Regulations will include provisions for the transport and disposal of waste substances which may be carcinogenic, as this is causing considerable concern to many members of the public in the areas where these products are disposed of?

Mr. Gunter: I am afraid that I could not answer that question offhand, but I will certainly let my hon. Friend have the answer.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will ensure by administrative means that all businesses and industrial organisations which employ persons for purposes connected with the health of their employees will obtain a refund in full of any Selective Employment Tax paid in respect of such persons.

Mr. Gunter: If a particular establishment qualifies for premium or for refund of tax, repayment will be made in respect of persons employed for purposes connected with the health of the employees

in that establishment. Most, if not all, industrial establishments employing such persons full time are likely to be in this position.

Mr. Holland: Would not the Minister agree that, for example, industrial nurses are equally necessary, whether employed in the manufacturing, construction or service industries? Would he not think it a little anomalous if some employers were encouraged to employ them, while others were discouraged from employing them?

Mr. Gunter: I can only say that the number of persons to whom he refers would be small compared with the total. I agree that the minority must also be looked after, but I can only say that I shall administer the measure as it is.

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the likely increase in the cost of processed wastepaper as a result of the operation of the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. Gunter: It is not possible to estimate this.

Mr. Allason: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this tax would mean a significant increase in the cost of waste paper, which the Government have accepted as being a very necessary raw material for industry? Is he, therefore, proud of his position of putting a tax on this raw material for industry?

Mr. Gunter: I do not know quite what to say to the last part of that supplementary question. Quite a number of figures have been brought out of the cost of the tax on processed waste paper. Whether or not those figures are accurate I would not say, but some of the information I have leads me to believe that it is nothing like the amount some employers are stating.

Industrial Safety

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will introduce legislation to establish a national council to inquire into inconsistencies and omissions in existing industrial safety provisions and to keep such provisions under periodical review.

Mr. Gunter: No, Sir.

Mr. Archer: As the Trades Union Congress expressly adopted this suggestion last year as part of its policy, would my right hon. Friend agree to consult the T.U.C. before finally making up his mind on the matter?

Mr. Gunter: My hon. Friend knows that we are already in consultation with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. on means of strengthening the machinery for dealing with this matter but—on what I think is the real point of his question—I have come to the conclusion that such a body as he has in mind, and earnestly believes in, would be too large and its elements too varied for it to achieve a successful result.

Equal Pay

Mrs. McKay: asked the Minister of Labour how far his talks with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry have advanced the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value.

Mr. Gunter: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 29th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston).

Mrs. McKay: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House of his experience of willingness on the part of employers to accept the principle of equal pay, and does he anticipate their co-operation in any working party he may establish?

Mr. Gunter: My hon. Friend knows of consultations already taking place with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. We have already had a number of meetings, so their very presence at meetings indicates the co-operation of employers.

Women Workers

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the anticipated increase in unemployment stemming from the Government's deflationary measures, he will cancel the trial publicity campaign planned for 11 districts and aimed at recruiting more women into industry and instead give practical encouragement to those displaced to move to those areas in which there is a marked labour shortage.

Mr. Gunter: No, Sir. These inquiries have been planned to take place in selected localities where there is an unsatisfied demand for women workers to discover whether there is a reserve of women available for work. I do not think it can be assumed that this demand will fall off as a result of the recent measures of restraint.
The services of my Ministry, including assistance under the transference schemes, are designed to assist unemployed workers or those likely to lose their jobs to find work in other areas.

Mr. Boardman: As it is part of the Government's policy to produce some mobility of labour, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that it is very difficult to see any sense in increasing the labour force with a costly campaign when others will be deliberately rendered idle?

Mr. Gunter: I think that my hon. Friend is exaggerating a little. We are doing this in certain areas because there is, and will remain, a demand for women workers. What we are trying to do is to assess how that demand can be met. I do not think that the measures which the Government have adopted will diminish that demand.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ARTHUR LEWIS: To ask the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the leaders of the Electrical Trades Union who support the Government's wage and salary standstill have voluntarily frozen a proposed increase in their salaries; and whether he will therefore meet and discuss with Mr. Sydney Greene, the General Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen, the possibility of him agreeing to forgo his proposed 25 per cent. increase in his salary for the period of the Government's wage and salary standstill.

Mr. John Hynd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to Question No. 50, and ask for your guidance? To what extent is it in order for hon. Members to put down Questions


with implied smears against named outside individuals and then not be present to put those Questions, leaving the Answer to the apparent obscurity of a Written Answer?

Mr. Speaker: There is some point in what the hon. Member has said, but it is not a point of order.

GIBRALTAR

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. WALL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Anglo-Spanish talks with regard to Gibraltar.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Question No. 66, taking the opportunity to make the statement referred to by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 4th August.
As the House is aware, the Anglo-Spanish talks about Gibraltar opened on 18th May, when the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs put forward certain proposals in a statement which I arranged at the time to place in the Library of the House.
Her Majesty's Government gave due consideration to this statement and, when the talks were resumed at official level on 12th and 13th July, gave a detailed reply to it and put forward their own views as to how the situation might be resolved.
I understand that the Spanish Government are now considering our views and that they will be ready to resume the talks some time later this month. I had hoped to be able to give the House this afternoon a date for this resumption, but regret that I am still unable to do so.

Mr. Wall: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. Would he not agree that throughout these negotiations the Spanish Government have been intensifying their economic blockade of Gibraltar? Will he undertake that no agreement will be reached with the Spanish Government during the. Recess which in any way affects the sovereignty of Gibraltar?

Mr. Stewart: Any agreement of any kind that we might reach would in the normal way be laid before the House.
With regard to the restrictions on Gibraltar it is true that at one stage the growth of holiday traffic made the effect of those restrictions more severe than it had previously been. We have emphasised, as will be apparent from my statement, which has been put in the Library, that one useful thing the Spanish Government could do even from their own point of view would be to seek the good will of the people of Gibraltar.

Mr. Doughty: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that in or out of the Recess he will not enter into any agreement which means that we abandon our sovereignty over Gibraltar?

Mr. Stewart: As I have frequently said, we have no doubts about sovereignty.

Mr. Thorpe: Would not one way of showing solidarity with the people of Gibraltar be if as few people as possible from this country go to Spain for their summer holidays?

Mr. Colin Jackson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if the Spanish Government are anxious to reach a satisfactory conclusion to these talks they are hardly being helpful in their action in relation to banning R.A.F. flights across Spain to Gibraltar?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I do not think that we should draw any closer connection between these two events than there is. It will be remembered that in January the Spanish Government banned N.A.T.O. flights to and from Gibraltar for all other N.A.T.O. countries. What they have now done appears to be a continuation of that policy.

Mr. Heath: The Foreign Secretary has just said that he has no doubts about the sovereignty of Gibraltar, but the assurance for which he was asked was that there would be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the agreement of the people of Gibraltar.

Mr. Stewart: I have said that any kind of agreement we might reach—and I do not know what progress of the talks there will be—will in any case be laid before the House.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is still not giving the assurance for which


he has been asked. Of course, under the Ponsonby Rule any agreement must be laid before the House, but what we are asking is that any agreement should not contain any change in sovereignty without the approval of the people of Gibraltar.

Mr. Stewart: There is only one qualification I must make to that and it is one which I think the right hon. Member will understand. It is part of our and Gibraltar's case that Gibraltar is not an independent community and, therefore, the responsibility for anything which is decided lies with Her Majesty's Government and this House. That is why I have always spoken of consulting the people of Gibraltar, but this does not mean that we do not give all the weight that ought to be given to their views.

Mr. A. Royle: Will the Secretary of State give a firm assurance that he will not agree to any solution which might entail a member of the Spanish Government being involved in the internal administration of Gibraltar?

Mr. Stewart: I must point out that the talks on which we are engaged are confidential. No doubt many proposals will be put forward, and are likely to be put forward, some of which might be acceptable and some of which might not, but it was agreed from the start that the talks should be confidential and I do not think that I can depart from that.

Mr. Maudling: The Foreign Secretary has spoken again, as in the past, about giving due weight to the views of the people of Gibraltar, but that is not quite the same as the question he was asked. Will he give an undertaking that there will be no transfer of sovereignty against their wishes?

Mr. Stewart: I have already expressed my view about sovereignty, but, on the other point, I must draw the attention of the right hon. Member to what I have already said, that the reason why we do not put it in the exact form that he puts it is that it is part of both Gibraltar's case and ours that responsibility lies here.

Mr. Heath: I am sorry, but I must press this, because the Foreign Secretary's answers are giving rise to great anxiety. Of course, a decision rests with the British Government—there is no question about that—but will he give an assurance that

the British Government will not take a decision which is against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar?

Mr. Stewart: What I think I ought to say in the present state of confidential talks is that we are throughout in the closest consultation with the people of Gibraltar and that the Gibraltar Ministers are entirely satisfied with the way we are conducting the matter.

Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hedging replies are bound to cause grave anxiety in Gibraltar? Can he give us a clear, definite assurance that any question of a change of sovereignty is not being discussed with the Spanish Government?

Mr. Stewart: If the right hon. Member will study the information that has already been put in the Library he will see that in the nature of the case this question came up in the talks and what I said about it then. He should inform himself of what has already happened. If he did so, he would see that there are no grounds for the anxiety that he professes to express.

R.A.F., NEATISHEAD (RADAR STATION FIRE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BERT HAZELL: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement about the fire at Neatishead radar station.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 84.
On 21st February, 1966, my predecessor made a statement in the House about a fire which had broken out five days earlier in the underground operations block of the radar station at Royal Air Force, Neatishead, in which three civilian firemen lost their lives. My hon. Friend told the House that a Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry had been convened and would carry out a full investigation.
I have now considered the Report of the Board of Inquiry. This Report confirms that the fire was deliberately started


by Leading Aircraftman John Cheesman, who was subsequently tried, convicted and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment by a civilian court.
The investigation of this fire has disclosed that certain improvements can be made to reduce the fire risks in buildings of this kind. An examination of all R.A.F. underground and block-house buildings is being carried out with the object of recommending practical improvements which will reduce fire risks. Liaison between the R.A.F. and local fire authorities at all such buildings is being strengthened in various ways, including more frequent familiarisation visits and on-site exercises under realistic conditions at least twice a year.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has accepted a recommendation of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales that a small committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Inspector of Fire Services should be set up to review fire fighting operations in underground premises of this kind. The lessons of the Neatishead fire will be studied by this committee.
The Ministry of Defence has received from the National Association of Fire Officers a request for an ex-gratia award to the dependants of Divisional Officer Dix, as well as representations on behalf of the dependants of the other firemen who also tragically lost their lives in the fire. Since then the representatives of the dependants in all three cases have applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for compensation arising from the criminal action of L.A.C. Cheesman.
I think, therefore, that it would be proper for me to defer my consideration of the possibility of any ex-gratia payment by the Ministry of Defence until the Board has made its decision on the claims before it.

Mr. Hazell: While thanking my hon. Friend for his statement, may I ask, first, whether, in view of the lapse of time since the fire, he can inform the House when the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will reach a decision, and, secondly, whether the basis of compensation from the Ministry of Defence differs from that of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?

Mr. Rees: I understand that in the present case applications on behalf of the three dependants are currently being considered by the Board. The Board is not, however, the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. I understand that a decision will be made as soon as possible.
I understand that in each case the amount of compensation will be based upon the principles laid down in the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1959. As any compensation which my Department or the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board might make is based upon exactly the same legislation, I think it proper that we should await the report of the Board.

Mr. Thorpe: May I, first, thank the hon. Gentleman for the help and courtesy which he has shown in this case? Is he aware that the chief fire officers of local government fire brigades have been under a grave disadvantage in not being able to make prior inspection of premises in Ministry of Defence ownership before having to fight a fire? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that these premises should be on all fours with any other public buildings so that fire officers can familiarise themselves with fire risks?
If, in the view of the hon. Gentleman, the Compensation Board does not make an adequate settlement to the three persons involved, will he, none the less, be prepared to reconsider the matter at that stage?

Mr. Rees: Once the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has considered the matter we will, of course, look at it again.
I understood that fire officers have had access to this type of premises, but, certainly, I equally understand that from now on everybody who might have to fight fires in such hazardous circumstances will have access to these premises.

Mr. Goodhew: The House is grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance about a reduction in fire risks, but can he tell us what security measures he is taking to ensure that further acts of sabotage of this type do not take place in vital radar installations?

Mr. Rees: When, as in this instance, a serving airman, deliberately and for reasons which are difficult to assess, sets fire by piling together paper, and so on,


it is extremely difficult to guard against this sort of thing. I can, however, give the assurance that everything possible that can be done, given a difficulty of this kind, is being done.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. In view of the presence here today of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and of the great importance of the matter referred to in Question No. 65 and the imminence of the conference of Muslim Powers in Baghdad therein mentioned, would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, for me to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary this Question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member knows better than anybody that it would not be in order.

RHODESIA

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
Her Majesty's Government have now reviewed the Rhodesian problem in all its aspects, and British officials will be returning to Salisbury at the end of this week for consultation with the Governor, and for further discussion with Rhodesian officials on the same exploratory and noncommittal basis as before.
It is clear that further exploration of a number of important issues is essential before we can judge whether or not a basis may exist for negotiations, and with whom such negotiations might take place.
As I have repeatedly informed the House, it remains our purpose to ensure that any ultimate solution fully conforms with our six principles; and it can be negotiated only with a constitutional Government in Salisbury.
Among the issues, therefore, that we need to explore further are the restoration of legality in Rhodesia, and the way in which the acceptability of any solution to the people of Rhodesia as a whole is to be tested.
Meantime, we shall vigorously maintain our policy of sanctions, which has received and continues to receive wide-

spread international support, reflecting the general condemnation by the world of the illegal action last November.
We remain concerned over the special problems which this situation has created for Zambia. Our High Commissioner in Lusaka and Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, who returned to Lusaka last week, have resumed the talks with the Zambian Government on the ways in which we might help in meeting Zambia's difficulties.
We naturally wish to see progress as soon as possible towards a solution of this unhappy situation, in the interests both of Rhodesia and of this country, but I cannot forecast early results. I can assure the House that no settlement will be reached without the authority of Parliament, with whom it rests to grant independence to Rhodesia.
Since we are approaching the Recess I should like to make it clear that, although there is at present no indication that a settlement is likely within the next two months, nevertheless, if there were any developments during the Recess making possible a settlement before the time fixed for the reassembly of Parliament, we should regard this as sufficiently important to advise you, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order No. 117, that the House should be recalled, so that the views of Parliament could be made known before any final commitment were made.

Mr. Heath: I should like to thank the Prime Minister for making this statement before the House rose, as he undertook to do on the previous occasion. We welcome the fact that these talks are to be resumed. We certainly wish them every success and we hope that the Government will spare no effort, time and thought to ensure this.
May I ask the Prime Minister three questions? First, in view of the emphasis which he has now put upon the fifth principle, may we assume that there has now been progress—and, we hope, satisfactory progress—with the talks on the other four principles?
Secondly, can the Prime Minister explain the early part of his statement, when he said that a solution
can be negotiated only with a constitutional Government in Salisbury"?


Surely, the purpose of the talks is to reach a settlement on how to bring about constitutional government, and by its very nature this cannot be carried on with a constitutional regime. Can the Prime Minister kindly explain this?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance that the House will be recalled to consider any settlement which might be reached.
May I ask, also, for an assurance that should there, alas, be any breakdown or any change in Government policy, the House would also be recalled during the Recess? In other words, may I ask the Prime Minister that, meantime, there should be no use of force and no question of handing over this issue to the United Nations, abandoning the position which the Prime Minister has always taken that it is a British concern?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. The fifth principle, is, of course, one that has been stressed as being absolutely vital by successive Governments. Whatever is concluded must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. We attach great importance, in the talks which will now be taking place, to going further into the question of the fifth principle and also the question of constitutional Government. Most of the talks so far have been directed, although they have covered the whole field of the six principles, to the first four principles; but I think that the right hon. Gentleman might be wrong in concluding that great progress has been made from the fact that I have now stressed the importance of the fifth principle.
With regard to the purpose of the talks and of constitutional government, one purpose of the talks is to discuss with whom the negotiations can take place—I mean full negotiations. They can only take place with a full constitutional Government. We are trying in these talks to carry things as far as they can be carried against this unprecedented situation that there is an illegal régime there. There must be a return to constitutionality, as I am sure the whole House would insist, before there can be a settlement.
On the question of any changes and of recalling the House, I have always made plain the position of Her Majesty's

Government about the use of force. The position has not in any way changed. I would not expect any change in the position during the Recess. If there were any change, apart from the kind that I have mentioned in my statement, naturally we would be in consultation with the right hon. Gentleman. The question of the recall of Parliament could be considered and argued in those circumstances.
We do not intend, as long as we have any hope of settling the problem, transferring the responsibility elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman will, however, recognise that if there is not speedier action towards a solution, other people will be taking action which may be difficult to resist.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to the House that Her Majesty's Government will abide by the majority decision at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference on the Rhodesian issue?

The Prime Minister: The Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference never proceeds by votes or by majority decisions. Each of us goes to this conference with our own responsibilities, and this is, fortunately or unfortunately, our responsibility. We shall have to discharge that responsibility, taking full account of the views of our Commonwealth colleagues.

Mr. Maudling: On the question of handing over this problem to the United Nations, the Prime Minister said that it was not his current intention. He was asked to give an assurance. Will he give this assurance: that there will be no question of handing this problem over to the United Nations without recalling the House beforehand?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance on the understanding of the interpretation that I put on the right hon. Gentleman's point. I should like to make sure that I have got it right. Some suggest that the sovereignty of Rhodesia should be transferred from this Parliament where it exists—not in Salisbury, but here—to the United Nations. This, in my view, and in the view of the Government, is a non-starter. It would not be a possibility.
A second interpretation which might be put on the right hon. Gentleman's


question is that we wash our hands of it and say, "We are sick of 'carrying the can' for this one. Let somebody else settle it." I do not believe that this is something we can do, certainly not in the present circumstances and not without an opportunity of consulting Parliament.
I did say that there was a third possibility. If the world community, including a majority of Commonwealth countries, perhaps, felt that we were laggard in dealing with this situation, it would be free for members of the United Nations to put this on the United Nations agenda, with all the difficulties that that would cause for us and for other interested countries.

Sir G. de Freitas: When negotiations eventually take place, will my right hon. Friend consider using the advice and experience of one of the many distinguished British residents in Kenya who have lived for two-and-a-half years under the rule of law in a multiracial society under a black African Government?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to bury last year, I drew the attention of bury, last year, I drew the attention of the then legal Government of Rhodesia to the message sent from a number of very distinguished Kenya residents saying that they had found, despite their anxieties, that life was very different from what some people in Salisbury said it would be when, in accordance with the proposals of successive Governments, majority rule was established.

Mr. William Hamilton: Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that under no circumstances will the independence of Rhodesia be recognised until there is majority rule, no matter how long that may take? Will he further agree that he has not ruled out entirely the prospect of a period of direct rule in the interim period?

The Prime Minister: The first point is fully dealt with in the White Paper that we published in connection with the discussions. The sixth principle says that there can be no question of handing over independence except on the fulfilment of those principles, including unimpeded progress to majority rule and guarantees to see that the progress en-

shrined in the 1961 Constitution, as amended, shall not be set aside by unilateral action. That remains the position of Her Majesty's Government.

On the question of direct rule and any interim means of getting back to constitutional rule, I have nothing to add to what I said in my statement to the House on 25th January.

Mr. Thorpe: May I ask three questions about Zambia? First, are we to have a statement about the extent of British economic help before the House rises? Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that President Kaunda's non-racial society should be backed to the limit of our resources? Thirdly, has he considered the possibility of joint Commonwealth initiative in providing, say, 1,000 trucks to assist Zambia to develop alternative exits?
With regard to Rhodesia, does the right hon. Gentleman take the view that sufficient progress was made to merit these talks resuming and, finally, are we to take it that he does not yet know whether there is a basis on which negotiations may be successful?

The Prime Minister: Those were four questions, and I am not sure that I might not have to be reminded of them in the course of my reply.
I doubt whether it will be possible to make a statement on economic assistance in Zambia's difficulties before the House rises. As I have said, the High Commissioner and Mr. MacDonald are now entering into discussions. I think that those discussions should be allowed to proceed. I hope that they will be completed, but I doubt whether they will be completed before the House rises.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was not in our interests to give all the help we can to Zambia. Certainly, within the limitations and the stringencies of our present economic position. Undoubtedly, some hon. Members sometimes forget the effect on Zambia of this illegal declaration of independence and the effects in consequence upon us of Zambia's ability to continue to have normal trading relations with us. We must do all we can within the limits.
The question of a Commonwealth initiative, for example, the suggestion of 1,000 trucks, is one upon which I shall


have discussion with my Commonwealth colleagues at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not underrate what has been done by the Government of Canada, for example, in helping Zambia already.
As to Rhodesia, as I understand the question, certainly it is much too early to say on the basis of the talks whether a solution is in contemplation or a possibility. I was extremely disturbed this morning on reading reports in The Times of a speech by Mr. Smith which would suggest, if properly reported, that he is going back to the old position, "No majority rule in my lifetime." This has been firmly rejected by the previous Government and by the present Government. If this is the attitude of the present Rhodesian régime, it does not hold out great hopes for a settlement of this problem.

Mr. James Johnson: While accepting that there are many hon. Members on the benches behind my right hon. Friend who, seeing Mr. Smith in this state of mind, believe that talks are a waste of time and that he will have to stew in his own juice until sanctions finally bite, may we have an assurance that talks will continue till the end of August so that there can be a clear and unequivocal message from this House to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference?

The Prime Minister: While I share the sense of deep concern about this speech as reported, I certainly do not agree that this means that talks will be a waste of time. It is right to continue with the talks to see if, round the table, it is possible to get some advance which has not been contemplated in public statements.
With regard to the timing, when we meet in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference we shall be able to meet our colleagues on the basis of the latest information resulting from those talks. I do not say that it is necessary, in those circumstances, that the talks must be ended by the end of August, but we must have the latest position as clearly as we can when the talks begin.

Mr. Sandys: The Prime Minister said that there must be a return to consti-

tutional government before any negotiations could begin. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that Mr. Smith will be required to give up U.D.I. before there can be any serious negotiations for a settlement? If that is so, it is totally unrealistic and the talks will be a waste of time.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has fallen so far from the position he took up when he himself was in office, because no one spoke in stronger terms to Mr. Smith and his colleagues than he did about the consequences of a U.D.I. I should have thought that the position of the House and of any Privy Councillor would be that we cannot have official dealings with an illegal and unconstitutional regime, though we are prepared to have these unofficial talks with its nominated representatives to see on what basis we could get a return to constitutional rule, and on what basis we could proceed towards independence. It would be a monstrous suggestion that we must concede the principle of U.D.I. to Mr. Smith before we could have negotiations.

Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend tell us to what extent African leaders have been consulted before the initiation of these talks with the rebel Smith, and will he remember that 95 per cent. of the population of Zimbabwe are Africans?

The Prime Minister: These talks are not taking place directly with a regime. From the beginning it has been made clear that these are informal talks to see whether there is a basis for talks of a more direct character and with whom those talks should take place. The phrase "with whom" includes the point raised by my hon. Friend. I had talks with all the leading African politicians, many of whom had to be brought out of detention centres to meet me last year, and I was left in no doubt about what their position would be.
Of course, on the fifth principle, one has to consider on what basis African opinion, which, as my hon. Friend says, is a significant part of Rhodesian opinion as a whole, can be consulted as to the basis of a possible Rhodesian settlement.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not now clear that neither Rhodesia nor this country can


afford to allow this unhappy quarrel to continue? Has the Prime Minister studied some important articles on this subject by Mr. Laurens Van Der Post recently, in the Sunday Telegraph? Would he not agree with Mr. Van Der Post that the greatest liberalising influence in Central Africa today is the technological and economic advance of all her peoples? Is that not precisely what his sanctions policy is designed to frustrate?

The Prime Minister: I agree that this problem should not be allowed to continue a minute longer than necessary. This is one reason why we have, with the authority of this House, proceeded with sanctions and other means to bring this matter to an end as soon as possible. Certainly, I did everything in my power to prevent U.D.I. happening, and it does not lie at the door of Her Majesty's present Government, or the previous Government, that this tragic and illegal situation has been allowed to develop.
I have seen the articles to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is not for me to express agreement or disagreement with them, but I certainly agree about the importance of technological advance. This was one reason why I was appalled to hear, in the talks last October, that the Rhodesian Government of that time would have felt it right to hold back educational development if that led to too many Africans becoming qualified for the vote.

Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend agree that if our Commonwealth and African friends are to be reassured, and their confidence is to be re-won, it is important to spell out the precise meaning of the principles we express? What do we mean by, "any solution must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole"? How would we ensure that? Will there be a rôle for the United Nations or the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: We have discussed that at great length over the past two years. I think that I am entitled to attack the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) now, but I also praise him for what he did during the last weeks of the previous Government by insisting that a solution must be accept-

able to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. Even on polling day, 16th October, 1964, he sent a very tough telegram rejecting certain proposals of Mr. Smith on that occasion for doing it through some indaba or other.
We have discussed at great length what this means and I do not believe that many Rhodesians, certainly not the late Government of Rhodesia, would have been prepared to accept either United Nations or Commonwealth intervention; they rejected even an all-party mission of Privy Councillors from this House. We have discussed at great length whether it should be done by referendum—there are many difficulties there—or whether the right answer might be a Royal Commission such as was suggested, and was still being examined right up to the last minute when the U.D.I. was taken last year.

Mr. Wall: Will any positive suggestions be made by the Government which might lead to an end of this unfortunate dispute? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that these talks will continue over the period of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference?

The Prime Minister: We have been making positive suggestions all this time. My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General stayed behind to go in great detail last October into the various questions of the entrenchment of the essential clauses of Chapter III. We have been pursuing this matter very vigorously over the past few months and shall continue to make any positive suggestions as seem right to secure a solution. I cannot guarantee that the talks will go on during the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference. I do not know what progress will be made when the talks resume in Rhodesia.

Several hon. Member: Several hon. Member rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a good run of questions.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL

Referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Bowden.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first speaker in today's debate, may I make one observation? I understand that the debate on crime will finish at about 8 o'clock. After that, there are 28 topics to be debated on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, Third Reading. Each of these is important to the hon. Member who has put it down. I would appeal to those who speak to be fair to those who are waiting to speak. It is a simple fact that a long speech deprives some other hon. member of his opportunity on what is a very precious Parliamentary occasion.

CRIME

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I hope that the House will endorse the Opposition's decision to choose for the general part of our debate the subject of crime. We have had debates about crime before. We had a good debate on the subject at the end of February. If I do not traverse again the various topics which were raised then, it is neither because I do not agree with what was then said nor because I do not recognise their importance. Today, however, without wishing to limit other speeches, I shall talk of professional crime, that is, crime organised as a business, employing experts, enforcing discipline and rules of its own, and, above all, making profits.
I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this aspect of the matter because I believe that in the past we have underestimated the importance of professional crime and its growth and because I believe that it is the clue which may lead us through the whole melancholy labyrinth of delinquency to an answer to the overall question. At the same time, I believe that the widespread existence of professional crime is in some sense the guarantee that the problem which has eluded the House for so long is, at least in principle, soluble.
Whatever else can be said about delinquency or crime in general, professional crime is to a large extent rationally motivated. Its motive is profit. Make it unprofitable and it will to that extent be less likely to occur. Allow profits to be made either by laxity of administration or by obsolescence of the legal framework and it is predictable that professional crime will increase. We do not have to ask the managing director of a limited company whether he is the product of a broken home. Neither do we need to send for a psychologist.
The professional criminal is in crime to make money. No doubt, he exploits sex as he exploits gambling, drugs, violence and the loopholes in the Companies Act and our commercial law generally. But these are only the surface manifestations of his activity. His motive is to make a profit.
Here, I warn against a dangerous misconception which I have heard from the lips of those who ought to know better. I refer to the distinction drawn, when one is discussing professional crime, between crimes against property and crimes of violence against the person. I heard it widely canvassed, for instance, at the time of the train robbery, that that robbery was less important than a crime against the person because it was only a crime against property. When the professional criminals stopped the train, they "clobbered" the driver and they ruined the rest of his life by personal injury. The participants in a recent club fight are said to have been responsible for 12 unsolved murders.
Violence is an essential part of professional crime—violence to subdue the victim, violence or, perhaps, corruption to intimidate or destroy witnesses, particularly witnesses of identification, violence to secure security and discipline in the professional gang itself, violence or corruption to intimidate jurors or police men. If we could, therefore, eliminate professional crime, the motive of which in the end is always an attack on property, we should, at the same time, eliminate a great deal of violence in its worst and most organised form.
It now needs to be said that, although professional crime can, in principle, be eliminated or reduced, we are not at present winning the war against it.


During the last two or three weeks, there have been three documents of outstanding importance published, each under the imprimatur of the right hon. Gentleman's Department—the Criminal Statistics for the Calendar Year 1965, the Report of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and the Report of the Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Last week, there appeared also a fourth document of equal importance published by the Estimates Committee of this House, which contained valuable suggestions, upon which, I hope, the right hon. Gentleman will comment, for the better deployment and use of our limited police resources.
The first three documents make rather melancholy reading. They show that we are not winning. The Criminal Statistics for the Calendar Year 1965 show a net increase in indictable offences known to the police of more than 6 per cent. over the previous calendar year 1964, and that year, in turn, was an all-time high year showing a net increase of 9 per cent. over 1963, which also was an all-time high year showing, I think, a similar increase over the year before that. I hope that no one will take comfort from the fact that 6 per cent. is less than 9 per cent. and say that the rate of increase is slowing down. An all-time high on top of an all-time high is no matter for comfort or complacency.
In dealing with these figures, we should remember the claim by Professor Radzinowicz, referred to, I think, by both Front Benches in both Houses, that the statistics of crime known to the police show only about 15 per cent. of the total crimes which were, in fact, committed. This would give a total of over 7 million indictable offences for the calendar year 1965. To quote another figure, claims on the main insurance companies last year for theft and comparable crimes amounted to £15½ million.
This, of course, is only a tiny proportion of the total turnover of the crime business and of its profits. They do not include the company frauds, the insurance frauds, a great number of robberies with violence, the building society fraud, the great export guarantee fraud, the proceeds of organised drug peddling or prostitution, crooked gambling, protection or dubious clubs. It is clear from considerations of this kind that the total profits of organised

crime in this country far over-top the earnings of Bar and Bench put together, and probably of the whole legal profession—and, be it remembered, they are all, or very nearly all, free of taxation.
It is clear that we are dealing with no minor industry and no minor brake on our economy. Its increase in productivity, 6 per cent. in the last 12 months, is more than twice that of the national norm.
A particularly disquieting circumstance—I turn here to the Report of the Chief Inspector, is the increase in violence, the disturbing extent to which men carry firearms or other weapons in support of theft or, as he puts it, to settle personal grievances. One must remember that the gang fights which have proved such a startling feature of our London courts in the past few weeks are part of professional crime, though the actual deaths and injuries involved may have been due to the internecine warfare between rival gangs.
A striking illustration of the Chief Inspector's comments about the disquieting nature of the increase in violence comes from the third document, that of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who shows that in the Metropolitan Police area robbery and assault with intent to rob went up more than a quarter—27 per cent.—in the last 12 months. I must particularly ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what he proposes to do to deal with crimes in which violence is used to intimidate or destroy a victim, to suppress evidence of identification, or in support of a blackmailing protection racket, because behind these figures lies a terrible world of misery and fear and almost unbelievable callousness. We all know probably in our own constituencies of horrible individual stories which support this view.
Some London Members were lobbied last week by the Association of Sub-Postmasters. Sub-postmasters are typical of a large range of persons who have quantities of cash either on their premises or on their persons which their functions demand should be readily available and easily snatched. One sub-postmaster last year lost his wife because he pressed the burglar alarm. Others have suffered permanent injury. One in my constituency identified his assailant, who


was then acquitted on a false alibi although he had a serious criminal record.
Apart from sub-postmasters, we read almost every day of wage snatches, bank robberies and of snatches and robberies of weekly takings. We are entitled to ask what the Government's plans are to protect people of this class. I intend no criticism whatever of the right hon. Gentleman. I simply think that we are entitled to know.
My theme today is that there are means available to us of protecting these people. But only if we give sufficient thought and priority to the matter. The paradox of it is that the boys in the big league of professional crime, the men at the top, are comparatively few in number. Of course, there is no Professor Moriarty, no "Mr. Big". There is no single organisation. To give some indication, the other day I asked the crime reporter of a well-known national newspaper how many criminals in a really big way of business would have to be behind bars to break the back of really big crime in London. He said possibly 70, certainly less than 100, and he mentioned a number of names. He mentioned to me somewhere between a dozen and 20 in all, already well known to me as criminals. At that time it happened that all were at large. Some had not been charged. Some were simply evading arrest. Some had been acquitted. Some had escaped from justice after jury disagreements, a point to which I wish to return. Some had escaped through loopholes in the law without having committed any technical offence.
The time has come to look at this question in a constructive way, and I wish to put before the right hon. Gentleman 10 points which within the framework of administration or of legislation he ought to consider, things which if he feels he has not the power to carry out himself he ought to say so. I have tried so far as possible to avoid those which were put forward last time by my right hon. Friend, Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, and I have chosen 10 somewhat arbitrarily because I was deterred from choosing more by the cynical comment of the Frenchman when the late President Wilson was said to have had 14 points,

that it was four more than the Almighty had on a famous occasion.
My first point is that we should make the cleaning up of known criminal gangs a special operation with special priority. None of us should forget that A1 Capone, probably one of the pioneers of professional crime on a really big scale in modern urban civilisation, was rendered harmless not by the ordinary punishment reserved in Chicago for murderers, but because he had defrauded the Income Tax authorities. Professional criminals have to live more or less wholly outside the law, and that means that if one concentrates upon investigating the boys of the large brigade known to be in crime in a big way and does not simply wait for them to commit offences to see if one can catch them out doing it, one can in the end be certain that one will find them doing something which will put them behind bars.
The second is that we must stop putting a premium on violence in support of crime. That is precisely what we have done, I think. The House will know that I myself voted against the abolition of capital punishment. I did so very largely for the reason that I am about to give. But the House took a different view. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not ask him to take a different view on this occasion. When, at the last General Election, I was asked why I had not included in my election address a pledge to attempt to return to capital punishment, and when I was criticised for not so doing, I said, quite frankly, that I thought it was inconceivable that a civilised Government of any party would seek to put on the party Whips on a matter about which convictions were so deeply held, and that three times in the last 16 years—1948, 1957 and 1964—different Houses of Parliament of vastly different political complexions had deliberately come to the conclusion that the death penalty should be abolished, and that, therefore, I was bound to tell my constituents that it was not predictable within any given period of time that a House of Commons would be elected which would reverse that decision.
I should think that that is true. But that does not absolve us from the responsibility of dealing with violence in support of theft and violence sometimes amounting to murder in support of theft.


One must remember that the professional criminal is rationally motivated. He weighs up chances with something of the precision of a bandit or a military expert thinking of a military operation. He asks himself deliberately whether it will be the policy of his gang or of himself to carry or to use a weapon or a fiream in the course of their activities. If in any event he is going to embark on a course of action which will attract a long period of imprisonment—I say arbitrarily five years plus, but it may be that that is not the right frontier—he will carefully weigh up against the chances of a marginally higher sentence the chance of escaping identification altogether, perhaps by destroying the only witness of identity, the chance of evading capture or, if he is tried at all, the possibility of evading conviction. Violence or murder may multiply his chances of escape by any of these routes.
The fact that we have abolished the death penalty—whether it was a good or bad deterrent is something about which hon. Members have long since made up their minds—has put a premium on violence in a very large number of cases. Violence increased in London by between nearly one-quarter and one-third last year and much of it was by criminal gangs in support of theft. The fact that we have abolished these penalties does not, however, absolve us from the obligation of putting something in their place.
So far as I can see, when the right hon. Gentleman introduces, as I hope and believe he will, the parole system, he will tend to accentuate the premium on violence, especially when the prisoner has something salted away to enjoy when he gets out. Such a prisoner has every reason to co-operate with the prison authority. He may get out after one-third of his sentence when parole is introduced—may be after as little as two years.
I am not saying that what I am about to suggest is necessarily the best means of adding a deterrent. But it is the only one I can think of. I can only say that, if it is not thought appropriate, then something else must be thought of, because otherwise crime will become more and more brutal, more and more frequent and deaths and injuries by violence will go on increasing.
My suggestion is that, where violence has been used in support of crime, the

Home Secretary should make it clear that the ordinary remissions for good conduct cannot be counted upon and that, the parole arrangements, will be very difficult to invoke in favour of a prisoner who has been convicted of an offence in support of which he has used violence or a weapon or the threat of violence or a weapon.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman should consider some kind of forfeiture of goods attaching to crimes of violence in support of crime. When I am told that the wives and children of criminals will be driven on to public assistance by such a threat I can only say that the wives and children of better men than they, who have not committed serious crime, are driven on to public assistance at present and that my withers are completely unwrung.
In any event, whether I am correct or not in this suggestion, the right hon. Gentleman should realise that he must add a penalty as an added deterrent to violence in support of crime and that the more he is convinced—as he is and I am not—that the House took a wise decision when it abolished the death penalty the more he is under an obligation to provide an alternative which will be really effective.
Next, I think that the right hon. Gentleman must legislate to control the places in which the professional criminal carries on his business, upon whose activities he battens and in which he is apt to invest his capital. We must control the clubs and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman intends to do so. I hope that he will let us know his plans. This is already being done in some places. It has been done in Manchester, where it met with quite astonishing and spectacular success.
When the powers were obtained by Manchester, of the clubs raided a large number were found to be engaged in drug peddling—and I know that that will interest the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short), who made a notable contribution in an Adjournment debate the other day. The raids yielded a number of absconders from prison and borstal. The raids discovered a nest of prostitution and, incidentally, it drove a minority of the clubs raided to go legitimate and to provide a very much needed amenity for young people.
Where these powers of control do not exist they should be taken. We cannot attack professional crime unless we attack the places where the businesses are carried on. That means, too, that gambling houses must be brought within proper control. When I spoke in the last debate of a club in my constituency, the next speaker said that it was a Conservative Government who had introduced the changed law on betting and gambling.
I do not regard this as in any sense a party matter, but I must tell the House quite frankly that I supported not only technically but really the reintroduction of cash betting into this country. As a young member of the Bar, I came to be convinced many years ago that the contempt for the law and the corruption amongst the police which the almost universal system of street betting invoked, was far worse and more corrupting than any evil it was designed to cure. But I must say that, if I had know the extent to which betting shops would proliferate as a result of our legislation, I think that I would have been the first to insist from the planning point of view alone that there should have been greater control upon their activities.
I must say that I was wholly unaware, as a member of the Government who passed this legislation, of the extraordinary scale upon which gambling clubs and casinos would come about as a result of our law. Indeed, I can think that of all my colleagues, since we were certainly not warned of this and were told that the contrary would be the case. Either there was lack of foresight or there was bad draftsmanship in the Act, because the scale and quantity of these things has been altogether more than we expected.
But what is far worse than the scale of the gambling is the actual criminality which often surrounds it—the moving-in of the Union Corse, which has happened in my constituency; the moving-in of the American criminal; the doubtful management of some of the clubs; the strange origin of some of the capital employed. I have even heard it suggested that this is where some of the proceeds of the train robbery went; the unpleasant character of some of the members; the strong-arm methods for enforcing bad debts sometimes employed

in clubs otherwise respectable and in some cases even crooked playing. These are matters which I would not mention if I was not sure that they were taking place on a large scale.
Short of putting the clock back, which I do not believe possible or desirable, it seems to me that the Government have two courses open to them if they wish to deal seriously with these matters. These are, first, very rigid control of gambling establishments and, secondly, complete municipalisation, as is the case in some French cities. I think that they must choose between these two and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell us in detail what his plans may be.
Next, surely we must bring our commercial law up to date. We must deal with company law, insurance law and building society law. They have all been used as the instruments of crime in the past few years. "Why should I risk my neck climbing up a drainpipe?", said one criminal to a crime reporter friend of mine. "I", he added proudly, "am a company director".
Let me say, lest hon. Members opposite should rejoice in this confession for the wrong reason, that the relationship between that kind of company director, that kind of swindler, and the honest director of a respectable company is precisely that between the pirate and the merchant skipper. Both use the sea; both employ ships and each is in it for what he can get out of it. Nevertheless one precisely preys on the other. Just as some types of insect prey on closely related species, so the professional criminal uses the commercial law for the precise purpose of preying on honest people who are in commerce for legitimate reasons.
But let us look how trivial is the £50,000 deposit for insurance companies compared with a single claim; how easily faked, it would seem; trivial also in comparison with that insisted upon by Lloyd's underwriters‡ Let us look at the ease with which large sums can be syphoned off from companies by loans to directors, sometimes in defiance of existing law. Let us look at the methods whereby small States with complaisant regulations and obsolete company law can establish registrations for their own advantage which, none the less, can be used to manipulate great concerns in this country.
Let us look at the, extent to which Board of Trade inspectors can be frustrated or fobbed off. If anyone doubts what I say, let him read the current number of Punch, in which a former colleague of ours, Mr. Geoffrey Bing, has written an amusing article entitled "Living with Dr. Savundra". Or let him consider the building society frauds, the London and Midland, for example, in which the two principal villians were not even charged or subpoenaed.
Clearly, we have only ourselves to blame if we, the centre of the modern commercial world, as we still are for many purposes, have a modern commercial law which is so behind the times that criminals can flourish and even obtain the entrée to decent society. So far, I have not mentioned the frauds on airlines, amounting I am told, to £900,000 to date, or the great export guarantee fraud whereby one gets the goods which one has exported and insured under the Export Credits Guarantee Fund stolen by a colleague abroad, so that one gets both the goods and the insurance money. I have not touched on the great merchant bank frauds. I am told that in the City of London now the Fraud Squad is so busy that unless the fraud complained of is more than £1 million one rates only a sergeant in the investigation, and that, if an inspector is wanted, the fraud must be of larger dimensions.
In the last section of my speech I want to talk about our criminal code and our criminal procedure. I do so with hesitation, knowing that what I say may offend some of the more conservative minded among my colleagues, and there is no greater conservative in this respect than the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), as he demonstrated at Question Time only a few days ago. We must reduce the number of perverse acquittals or disagreements on indictment. A number of very disquieting things have been happening lately in jury trials. The acquittal rate in contested cases is about 40 per cent. I share the view of the Lord Chief Justice that this is much too high and could be reduced without increasing the possibility of innocent men being convicted.
Of course, it is difficult to discuss these matters. It is impossible to name names and it is impossible to give cases, be-
cause those acquitted are assumed to be innocent of the crime with which they have been charged. But the Lord Chief Justice has said, and I must say that I agree with him, that out of four who are acquitted in 10 contested cases, three are guilty. The three who are guilty and acquitted, as distinct from the six who are convicted, are as often as not the really dangerous criminals. It is the mug who gets caught under the present criminal procedure. It is the simple man, the man on the fringe of the case, or the man who does not know how to "nobble" the jury, who is caught. To get off in this country it is quite enough to bribe or intimidate one juror twice in two successive trials, because after that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will enter a nolle prosequi.
There was recently a terrible case at the Court of Criminal Appeal—and I mention cases which have been spoken of in public so that I may not be accused of attacking innocent men—which was reported in The Times and in which the court itself spoke of four successive unsuccessful attempts to "nobble" members of a jury and said that the fifth attempt had obviously been successful, because the man on the fringe of the case had been convicted, while those more dangerous criminals against whom there was overwhelming evidence had been acquitted.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I intervene because I do not want my silence to imply that it should be assumed from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that if I were seized of information that there had been, in regard to a particular accused, two "nobblings", to coin his phrase, of two separate jurors, the accused would achieve immunity from any subsequent proceedings.

Mr. Hogg: I am quite sure that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had evidence upon which he could act, he would do his duty, as every predecessor he has ever had would have done. I am not criticising the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but only speaking what I believe to be the truth. If I knew of the evidence upon which he could act, I would have given it to him already and would not have spoken of it in public.
What I am saying is that when judge after judge and legal figure after legal figure speaks of the "nobbling" of jurors as a reality, he is talking about what he knows, in the sense that he is talking of what are moral certainties. Let me remind the House that only the other day it was shown in a case which acquired a certain notoriety, and which certainly employed the professional services of more hon. Members than one, that one of the jurors was alleged to have a long criminal record to his discredit, and the verdict was at least sufficiently surprising to cause some of us to raise our eyebrows. I bow to the superior knowledge of the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams).

Mr. W. T. Williams: I do not dispute the suggestion which I think is in the back of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind, namely, that one ought not to have on juries trying criminal cases people with criminal records, but it is unfair in this case to say that the juror had a long criminal record. He had two convictions, neither for a serious offence.

Mr. Hogg: I am glad of that correction of what I said. At any rate, he had two convictions, which is enough for my purpose.
I was about to add that, of course, the situation is rendered much worse by the right of challenge. An accused can challenge without cause seven jurors when being tried at the Old Bailey. If there are 12 people in the dock, 84 jurors can be challenged, which means that the accused can practically choose their own jury. If the accused are friendly with some of the accused in another court, the right of challenge can be used in a more computer-like and sophisticated fashion, and I am told that this is beginning to be done.
I implore the right hon. Gentleman despite the almost religious veneration with which juries are regarded in this country, to remember that there are some of us at least, who are not without experience in this matter, who want him to look at it very seriously indeed and to believe that some of these long-standing institutions are not to be immune from criticism.
The law of England is really only a branch of social science—the lawyer

ought to be an apostle of common sense and justice. He is not a hierophant indulging in a secret ritual in which only initiates of a mystery religion are allowed to take part. If he once gets that into his head he will not do very much good by society.
There are legal rights, established sometimes by prescription and sometimes by the statute law. There is what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne describes as the immemorial right of silence. I do not believe that the right of silence is self-evident, or necessarily proved as of benefit to society. I recognise that there must be safeguards, but I believe that the right of silence of the accused is at the bottom of the very small number of complaints against the police. Those who practise at the Old Bailey more often than I do assure me that the insertion of rather doubtful "verbals", as they are called, by unscrupulous police officers are largely provoked by their inability to get the information legitimately by reason of the Judges Rules. The Judges Rules ought to be very quickly examined, as ought to be the right of silence in criminal cases generally and the inability of prosecuting counsel to refer to that silence when it is unreasonably employed.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is in the course of examining the preliminary hearing. He is doing this on the advice of many well-informed people. If he is to abolish the 1848 preliminary hearing, in its present form, or curtail it over a large range of cases, surely he ought to have another look at its character? Once one has dealt with the preliminary hearing so as to alter its nature, there is surely a case for seeing whether the Continental system may be better—that is with a right of inquiry by the examining magistrate in private, subject to proper safeguards, into what the proper explanation of the accused may be.
Lastly, this country needs a penal code. Our penal legislation is a jungle in which strange night creatures operate and even the pure white hunters, many of whom I see round me, while they indulge in a noble and elevating pursuit, are not given sufficient chance of meeting their game. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman how this country might


acquire a penal code. Her Majesty's Government have already set up the Law Commissioners. I am not greatly enamoured of the original purpose for which Law Commissioners were established. The law is far too important a subject to leave to lawyers.
However, a penal code is something which lawyers are peculiarly well suited to draft. Under the presidency of the Law Commissioners, various aspects of the criminal code ought to be fanned out to the academic lawyers of the universities, so that they could draft books with parts of the code for submission to the public and to the legal profession. This happened in the case of Chalmer's Sale of Goods and Chalmer's Bills of Exchange, and it happened in the case of the Marine Insurance Act.
At the end of five years, we could have an intelligible set of laws which people could understand and look to with respect. One, at any rate, of the reasons why we do not get on very well with law reform is that we are dealing with an inter-related jungle of archaic ordinances within which it is almost impossible to divine the truth. The principal law book which we use in my profession, Archbold's Criminal Pleading and Practice, had its first edition in 1822 and has run through 35 editions. The only book which I know which is less like a literary work is Erskine May, which has suffered the same kind of fate. Both ought to be burned by the public hangman. Books which have gone through more than 20 editions over a period of 100 years are clearly in great need of revision.
My message is simple. We are not winning the war against professional crime. In principle, it can be won. There is no single panacea. But we shall not win this war unless we are prepared to give it a much higher priority than it has hitherto enjoyed. There must be more effort made, and more resources provided as well as more in the way of Parliamentary time. In short, and this is my one controversial remark, this subject must receive a higher social priority than even that of the nationalisation of steel.
The right hon. Gentleman is credited with the noble ambition of becoming known as a liberalising Home Secretary.

I have no complaint with this ideal, although I must warn him that the field in which he is working is one which has been ploughed and sowed and reaped often enough before, without the addition of very much in the way of fertiliser. What he will find is nothing but the leavings of the great nineteenth century reformers. In the end, history will judge the right hon. Gentleman by a different and sterner criterion. He will be judged by his willingness to eliminate professional crime, which is endangering and corrupting our society and, which, even from the crude values of economics, is worth the effort to destroy.
I wish the right hon. Gentleman the best of good fortune in seizing the opportunity which I am certain is now his to seize.

4.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has given us a characteristically dramatic account of certain criminal activities, accompanied by a substantial number of proposals—constructive mostly—for legislation. Not only did he commit himself to the austerity of giving only 10 points, rather than 14, but he also practised the austerity of not numbering them, so that I found it occasionally a little difficult to follow how far he had got. However, I took in as many as I could, with great interest.
I make no complaint about either parts of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. Much organised crime at present is of a dramatic and a horrifying nature and it is good that the public should be well aware of what is going on. I could tell quite a lot of horror stories, but I do not propose to do so for two reasons.
First, because my information, unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman's, necessarily comes from official sources and much of it concerns matters which are sub judice. In other cases it is by no means always desirable that what the police know should be disclosed to the criminals before it can be acted upon. My second and more important reason is because I have, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, the responsibility for attempting to deal with crime, not merely to talk about it. Therefore, I


will devote my speech not to describing the problem, but to saying what we are trying to do about it.
I recognise the urgent need for some new laws in this respect. In the autumn I propose to present to the House by far the biggest and most wide-ranging Measure in this sphere since 1948. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not trying to make too big a party point of the fact that we cannot reform the whole of the law at once. He said that he was only partisan at the end of his speech when he came to the Steel Bill. Even that partisan part of his speech emerged in a slightly less partisan form than its trailer in the Sunday Express yesterday.
Let me take one example. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked a good deal about gaming clubs. I agree that there is a big problem here, and, as I told the House last week, I have already worked out proposals for tighter control. I will circulate them for comment by interested bodies and will let the House know what I have in mind in the near future. What I am trying to deal with is the mess left by three successive Measures put forward by former colleagues of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that it had not been foreseen what would happen and that if it had been foreseen he would not have been a full party to the 1960 Act. But we have to face the fact that most of our troubles come from excesses, largely unforeseen I agree, which have flowed from the 1960 Act.
However, that was followed by another Act, a long Act containing no fewer than 58 Sections, in 1963. That was followed by an amending Act in 1964. None of these Measures dealt with the excesses. This is not a reason for complacency today, but it is certainly a reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not be too self-righteous.

Mr. Hogg: I hope that I was not self-righteous, but was perfectly candid. The right hon. Gentleman can also be candid by saying that, whatever criticisms we were subjected to by his own Front Bench, they did not consist in prescience of what took place. Therefore, the absence of foresight was equally his.

Mr. Jenkins: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about the 1960 Act, that may, to some extent, be true. We had amending legislation, but some of the excesses which had developed were not dealt with in it.
I have always taken the view, when dealing with both Mr. Peter Thorneycroft and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that crime is not, by its nature, a suitable subject for party dispute or party passions. Provided that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not expect me to cover the whole field immediately, I am extremely happy to leave it there.
The crime figures in general certainly present a most disturbing picture. In the relatively short period of about 8 months that I have been in my present office I have never attempted to conceal this, or to gloss over the suffering, and, indeed, I believe, the fear which lies behind the figures. On the contrary, I have tried to draw constant attention to them. But we should not avoid complacency by falling into the alternative danger of painting the picture even blacker than it is. To do this would be to encourage the criminals and to discourage the police and those anxious to help the police.
Last year's criminal statistics for England and Wales became available a few weeks ago. They were published several months earlier than has recently been the practice, and I am sure that the House will welcome that change. They showed a continued rise, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. The number of indictable offences was up by 6·2 per cent. on 1964. But there was some flattening of the trend. This rise was quite bad enough—I make no bones about it—but it has to be seen against the background that in 1962, 1963 and 1964 the comparable figures were 11·1, 9 and 9·2 per cent.
There are two details of the figures which are worth mentioning. First, last year there was almost no increase in the number of juvenile convictions for indictable crime. The rise here was less than 1 per cent. Secondly, the number of murders known to the police was two down on 1964, despite some widely publicised suggestions to the contrary. The incidence of the crime of murder, horrible though it must be whenever it


occurs, has remained remarkably steady for 30 years or more. If the other criminal statistics had followed the same course, our problems today would be a great deal less serious than they are.
At the same time, there can be no question of the slowing down of the rate of increase of crime generally being enough. The object must be to halt the wave in its tracks and then to turn it back. As I said in the debate in February, it is my view that the main emphasis in our struggle to achieve it should be on detection and on conviction. If the chances of detection are remote, the severity of punishment is a weak threat. But detection itself becomes an idle exercise unless it is followed for the guilty with the near certainty of conviction.
What are we doing to improve performance in both these directions? Detection is largely a function of the strength and efficiency, the equipment and organisation of the police. On all these matters I am grateful for the Report of the Estimates Committee which was published last Wednesday. We will study carefully all the 23 recommendations of that Committee and send a full reply. At this early stage the House will not expect detailed comments, but some of the recommendations were already being applied and others are under intensive consideration at the moment by the three working parties under the Police Advisory Board which have made good progress over the past six months.
On manpower, following the excellent recruitment performance of 1965, we have continued to achieve reasonably good results in the first half of this year. But I do not expect our problems to be solved by any dramatic increase in numbers, although I should certainly like to see a sharp increase in the number of graduates and sixth formers coming into the police service. We must make the very best use of the men we have. This, to my mind, is largely a question of equipment and organisation, and of morale, too.
On equipment, particularly the personal communications equipment of the individual policeman, we are in the process of a virtual revolution. A year ago, the Metropolitan Police had only 25 personal wireless sets at its disposal. Today, it

has 275. By the end of this year it will have another 1,000. Next year, it plans to buy a further 1,500. This is a vast improvement in two years. Outside the Metropolitan area there has been a roughly similar rate of development. The preliminary programme outside London is 3,000 sets for this year and 5,000 sets for next year.
On organisation, as I announced on 18th May with, I believe, the general approval of the House, a big programme of amalgamations—the biggest programme of reorganisation of the police for over 100 years—is being put into effect. I should like to give the House an interim report on the progress so far made with these amalgamation schemes. What has occurred so far has, to my mind, been reasonably satisfactory.
Of the total of 98 affected, 56 police authorities have already indicated their agreement in principle to the proposed schemes. Put another way, our plans were for 29 new combined police areas. In 10 of these, all the police authorities involved are agreed in principle and it is only a matter of working out the details. In the case of Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton, the new chief constable has already been designated and the new force will soon be ready to be launched. This is an excellent example.
This new force, together with at least nine others where agreement has been reached, should be in operation as combined units by 1st April, 1967. In a further 11 of the 29 new areas, all the police authorities concerned are currently discussing the proposals together. We have provided them with model amalgamation schemes, and I hope that agreement will soon be reached.
I turn to the areas of somewhat greater difficulty. Thirteen existing authorities have proposed alternative amalgamation schemes. Regretfully, I have had to tell 11 of them that they were not acceptable. But in the other two cases I am considering further representations. So far, only three police authorities have said that they are not willing to amalgamate. I very much hope that they will think again, and will not wish to stand out as islands of parochialism against the broader view taken in the country generally. My Department will be in touch with them again shortly to see


whether they are still prepared to discuss voluntary schemes.
I am sure that the voluntary way is much the better way. The outstanding success of the existing Mid-Anglia and West Midlands amalgamations shows that if early agreement is reached and advanced planning is done in a friendly atmosphere the transition can be made much more efficient. But I must make it clear again, as I did on 18th May, that if it is necessary in the last resort, I shall not hesitate to use compulsory powers—and I shall use them in time for the programme to be completed by 1st April, 1968.
Where there have been difficulties and delay, these have arisen partly from the view that I should amend the Police Act so as to be able to amalgamate parts of existing areas—for example, taking parts of the county of Lancashire into a force covering the whole of the Manchester conurbation—or even postpone amalgamations until after the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government had been received.
I have received several deputations, notably from the Association of Municipal Corporations and the North West County Borough Association, to discuss these points, but I must make it finally clear that there can be no question of waiting for the Royal Commission, and I do not think it right, either, to seek a prior amendment of the Police Act. Amending legislation would raise other controversial issues which would cause delay and raise the difficult question of representation on combined authorities of parts of areas taken from their parent counties. In my view, it would weaken the links with local government which I have been most anxious to preserve.
Most important of all, it would set back by two years or more the whole timetable of amalgamation. Convinced as I am that this programme will greatly improve the efficiency of the police in the present most crucial stage of their fight against crime, I would regard it as unforgivable on my part if I allowed such a delay to take place. I am glad that the Estimates Committee agrees that the timetable should be kept to and that there should be no pause for interim legislation. But I am not quite so happy about its suggestion that amending legis-

lation should be introduced immediately after the amalgamation programme so as to be ready for the Royal Commission. I hope that the Commission will recommend the creation of local government units which will also be viable police areas. At first sight, I feel doubtful about introducing a third stage, with a further piece of uncertainty, into the programme, but that is not a matter on which a decision is necessary now.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will lead himself to the conclusion, which seems to follow from his reasoning, that if he rejects the interim suggestion from South-East Lancashire and waits for the Report of the Royal Commission, although that Commission will put up a new structure of local government it does not necessarily follow that police efficiency, even at that stage, would follow the lines of local government when other criteria are much more important.

Mr. Jenkins: Not necessarily, but it is desirable, provided it can be combined with policy efficiency, that police work should be associated with local government work, and if it is possible to reach agreement on local government areas which are viable police areas it is very good that the two should be conterminous.

Sir David Renton: We should get this point clear. The Local Government Commission is not being asked to make recommendations with police areas specifically in mind. Do we take it, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman is merely expressing a hope that when it makes its recommendations he or his successor will be able to create police authorities which will broadly follow the recommendations of the Commission?

Mr. Jenkins: Broadly speaking, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is putting the matter correctly. It would not be right to wait for the Royal Commission. We must do the best we can, under the terms of the existing Police Acts—and I think that it is a fairly good best—to secure amalgamations in the meantime. But when the Commission has reported the position can be looked at and, with a little adjustment, we may be able to get police areas back into association with


local government areas. This is a matter to be judged when the Royal Commission has reported.
Concluding this section of my speech, I would like to pay tribute to the breadth of view which has been shown by most local authorities, and to the public-spiritedness of the chief police officers, for whom, more than anyone else, this programme necessarily involves upheaval and personal inconvenience. Both individually, and through their Association, the chief constables have assured me that they are doing all they can to support the reorganisation in the interests of the police service. I have been tremendously impressed by their loyalty to the service, and I greatly hope that the new police authorities will realise the importance of offering these able and experienced men who have to lose their individual commands, posts of worthwhile seniority and responsibility.
It is also vital that the closest consultation with the Police Federation and the Superintendents' Association be maintained throughout the amalgamation process. Chief constables are keeping the joint branch boards of the Police Federation informed of all developments, and the A.C.P.O. has readily agreed to a request that at the earliest possible moment the joint branch boards of the forces subject to amalgamation should set up special joint committees to discuss the problems affecting all ranks of the police service which the new combined forces will pose.
At the same time, the amalgamations must not attract too much of police time and attention. They are only a means towards greater efficiency, and certainly not the end itself. They must not divert the service from the experimentation with new methods which is already going forward vigorously. At the centre of the experimentation is the Home Office Research and Planning Branch.
A large proportion of the research programme is devoted directly to the combatting of crime. In four cities—Newcastle, Cardiff, Liverpool and Sheffield—we are conducting a year's controlled experiments into the value of traditional beat patrolling on foot as against newer and more orthodox methods. In Plymouth, we are experimenting with the more flexible deployment of men between plain clothes and uniformed duties; in

Leicestershire, with the concentration of highly skilled clue-searching teams upon the scenes of crimes; in Liverpool and London, with the use of closed circuit television for observation purposes; in one regional crime squad area, based on Portsmouth, with infra-red viewing equipment for use at night, and in part of Liverpool, as well as across the border in the Kirkby area of Lancashire, with a special deployment of officers in cars.
In the Speke section of Liverpool results over the past five months have shown a 25 per cent. decrease in crime, a 20 per cent. increase in arrests and prosecutions, a 40 per cent, decrease in complaints, and a 33 per cent. decrease in traffic accidents—and, not surprisingly in the circumstances, a big improvement in police morale. A development of the experiment possibly more suited to a wider range of urban areas is also being tried by the Lancashire force at Accrington.
Where these experiments are successful, the lessons to be learned from them must be applied quickly and widely. In addition, we are studying with the Ministry of Defence the possible use of helicopters for police work, and are using the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment for work in connection both with the automatic scanning and searching of fingerprints and with the chemistry of these prints. We are determined that the police shall have the full resources of modern science and technology behind them, and we are now making rapid progress in this direction. We are also keeping our minds fully open to police developments abroad.
As part of the amalgamation programme, we are also paying close attention to the efficient internal organisation of big forces. But the largest force of all will not be created by the amalgamations. It already exists and is my direct responsibility as Home Secretary. The Metropolitan force is made up of 19,000 police officers and employs nearly 8,000 civilians. Despite daunting problems and heavy manpower deficiencies, considerable organisational advances have been made in the recent past. Scotland Yard itself will be moving, early in the new year, to a modern building which will incorporate the most up-to-date control and communications developments.
Nevertheless, as many of our foremost commercial enterprises have recognised,


big organisations can benefit immensely by being looked at from time to time from outside. The Metropolitan Police is no exception. I have accordingly decided, and the Commissioner and the Receiver have welcomed this decision, that a firm of management consultants should be brought in to look, in the broadest way, at the distribution of functions and responsibility within the Metropolitan Police. The consultants will not be advising on police work itself—the value or otherwise of the beat system, for example. I am not sure that they would be qualified to do this, and in any event these matters are being fully reviewed in other ways.
What they will do is study the organisation of the force and recommend any changes which would seem to be desirable in the light of the most up-to-date managerial concepts. This will be a job of major importance, and I shall look forward to the report with the keenest interest and a determination that it shall be carried out. The names of the consultants will be announced as soon as the appointment has been made.
In all these ways, we are seeking to improve the efficiency of the police and, with it, the chances of detecting the criminal. But it is not much use detecting him unless he can be convicted as well. I have recently been giving close thought and study to this aspect of the matter. I have firmly come to the conclusion that, in all too many cases, particularly those concerning the most vicious forms of organised crime and the really big criminal conspiracies, the scales of justice are now weighted too heavily in favour of the accused.
This is not a matter of simple statistics. When we are told that 84 per cent. of indictments result in a conviction, that might sound fairly satisfactory. Even when this is broken down to explain that the 16 per cent. of acquittals amount to nearly 40 per cent. of all those who plead not guilty, this may not sound unreasonable either. After all, the innocent can be falsely charged, and there are few of us who would not be prepared to pay a high price for protecting them. But among the 40-odd per cent. are not only the innocent, but quite a lot whom everyone connected with the case—police, judge, counsel, and experienced Press-

men who are reporting it—know perfectly well to be guilty.
The trouble is—here I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that they are often not the petty criminals. The petty criminals come mostly among those who plead guilty or, if they plead not guilty, are the 60 per cent. who are convicted. Amongst those who get off are the big fish—the men who do not operate on their own, but are the centres of networks of criminal activities. Nothing is more discouraging to the police and those who try to assist them than when, after long efforts, they catch one of these "managerial" criminals, they find that he is able to frustrate the processes of justice.
How can this be done? Largely, I think, through the power to intimidate or to corrupt both witnesses and juries. The problem of witnesses who find discretion the better part of valour is not an easy one to solve but the jury aspect of the matter may be less intractable.
The jury system is a foundation of the British legal tradition and, despite recent strictures, not least from the Lord Chief Justice, I am not in the least attracted by proposals that we should turn away from it. But this does not mean that we should not adapt it to modern circumstances. The problem of the perverse juror has always been with us to some extent. He may cause retrials at very considerable public expense and inconvenience. But when he is reinforced, in big criminal cases, by the corrupt or intimidated juror, a far more serious situation arises, and there is mounting and formidable evidence that, especially in London, this situation has now arisen.
I therefore propose, in the Criminal Justice Bill, to ask the House to introduce majority verdicts. In Scotland, a simple majority of 8 to 7 in a jury of 15 is sufficient to convict, but there the position is modified by the fact that they have a third, "non-proven" verdict. I would propose a much more decisive verdict of 10 to 2, and, as an additional safeguard, I would propose that such a majority verdict, as opposed to a unanimous one, should not be accepted until after a considerable retirement—so that there can be plenty of time for argument and for one group to convince another.
I do not believe that this change will weaken the position of the innocent,


especially with the new criminal appeal provisions, but I am convinced that it will considerably ease the task of convicting the guilty. Nevertheless, majority verdicts by themselves will go only part of the way towards solving the problem of those jurors who, because they are themselves criminals, refuse to convict the guilty.
At present, persons with criminal convictions can and do sit on juries. The Departmental Committee of Jury Service, under the chairmanship of Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, recommended that people convicted of serious crime should be disqualified from serving. This was one of many recommendations of the Committee and action on the Report as a whole, which applies to civil as well as to criminal juries, must await a separate Juries Bill which I want to introduce as soon as Parliamentary time can be found. But it is so important that the system should be safeguarded against the juror with criminal convictions, who is particularly open to corruption and intimidation, that I am taking the opportunity of the Criminal Justice Bill to take into account this recommendation of the Committee.
As well as these provisions, the Bill, which as I have already said, will be a major Measure, will make a number of significant reforms in the penal system and the criminal law and the procedure of the criminal courts. For details of these proposals, however, as well as for other sections, I think that we had better await the Bill. But in view of recent speculation as well as other considerations, I thought it right to give the House the Government's decision about majority verdicts.
When I last addressed the House upon the general subject of crime, which was before the right hon. and learned Gentleman was forced, by electoral exigencies, to take on his present shadow responsibilities, I concluded by saying that the country could and must be made a safer place in which to live. I believe that I have shown we are taking some resolute steps in that direction. I also said that in our approach to penal reform we intended to be swayed neither by sentimentality nor by emotional and ill-considered cries for vengeance.
We want to deter, but we also want, wherever it is possible, to rehabilitate the offender as quickly as possible. This is

in the interests of society just as much as in that of the individual concerned. I believe that we are remaining equally true to that principle. In all these matters passion and prejudice are extremely bad counsellors. I propose to avoid them both and to proceed with a mixture of realism and hope.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The House, having heard the two opening speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and the Home Secretary, will be glad that we have managed to wrest from our interminable discussions about the economy just a few hours on the subject of crime. I undertake not to speak for more than a period commensurate with a four-hour debate.
I make no complaint at all that the Home Secretary dwelt on what he is doing rather than on what the criminals are doing. The House and the country will applaud the point which he made at the end of his speech on the subject of juries. It is quite clear that the Criminal Justice Bill which he proposes to introduce in the autumn will be a major piece of legislation which will contain some very important matters. Is there no chance that the Home Secretary will provide us with a White Paper between now and the introduction of the Bill, because there will be matters in the legislation which ought to be digested and pondered? No doubt they are right, but it would be appreciated if we had some advance notice of some of these proposals, in addition to the proposal about majority verdicts.
While I applauded what the right hon. Gentleman said and agreed with the line that he took, I was sorry, in a way, that he felt unable to dwell a little more firmly on the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend—the growth and menace of organised professional crime in this country. I took the Home Secretary's point about painting too black a picture, but he, in turn, will take the point that at the root of what he and the police force are up against is the professional criminal, on a very much bigger scale than this country has ever known before.
I think that the public ought to know from somebody what is happening and what we are failing to stop from happening. They ought to know what the Home


Secretary knows quite well—that at the moment organised crime is getting the upper hand and that, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, this is a war which we are not winning but which, in fact, we are losing. I doubt whether the country is aware of the scale of professional crime at the moment. We have criminal organisations today which operate like commercial corporations.
It is not uncommon for up to half of the fruits of any particular job to be put to reserve for the next operation, just as a company will provide for future investment. It is not uncommon—I hope that the Home Secretary will not think that I am over-dramatising, but these are facts of which the public ought to have some knowledge—to hire a safe blower for perhaps £5,000 a time, not as part of the gang but as a freelance, as a professional gentleman whose services can be obtained for any particular job. Very able and very ingenious men are engaged in these criminal organisations.
I am aware that the mail train robbery was thought to be the last word in ingenuity. I am not sure that it was quite the last word. I wonder whether the Home Secretary knows—I think he does—what the sequel might have been if that operation had been wholly successful. I think that the sequel to the mail train robbery would have been a bullion train robbery. Science today makes it quite possible to fit charges to the floor of a bullion train in such a way as to cause the floor to drop out at a particular point in the journey. The charges could be fired by electronic devices operated from the side of the line. Guards would be useless. The booty having fallen through the floor, men and lorries could do the rest. Perhaps that threat has now receded, but it might have a successor one of these days.
What is the answer to this sort of thing? I stress that one answer is a much stronger and better system of police intelligence. Really good intelligence is becoming a main counter to organised crime. I am sure that the Home Secretary knows that senior policemen have endorsed this view. Really good intelligence takes good men a lot of time. They cannot be hurried. They have to devote a great deal of time to discovering what

is going on. The regional crime squads have a crucial rôle to play, and I stress to the Home Secretary that they need all the numbers and all the qualities that can be organised on their behalf.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, all this is being accompanied by increasing violence. Page 36 of the Report of the Chief Inspector of Constabulary makes that quite clear. There is a ruthless calculation of odds by the professional criminal.
May I deal with one point that was mentioned neither by my right hon. and learned Friend nor by the Home Secretary? I refer to the big bunch of hoodlums, usually young, outside the criminal circle today, who are doing a good deal of mischief. There is one factor, in particular, to which I call the Home Secretary's attention. A great many of the young hoodlums, as opposed to the professional criminals, who take part in the raids, more often than not with weapons, are undoubtedly, to use the expression, loaded with amphetamine drugs. This is not easily proved, but I think there is a sufficient body of police evidence to show that this may be so. For this work amphetamine drugs are much better and safer boosters of morale than alcohol. The professional criminal would probably avoid both.
One consequence is that when weapons are carried by these hoodlums, they will be more ruthlessly and more violently used than might otherwise be the case. I have reason to think that a great deal of violence can be associated with the all-too-widespread distribution of purple hearts and similar drugs. The Home Secretary might do well to get an estimate from the police of the extent to which they think that the so-called soft drugs are playing a part, I will not say in organised crime but rather in disorganised crime, and rendering it infinitely more dangerous to the law-abiding citizen.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will talk about police powers and the state of the criminal law. I am glad that the Home Secretary has accepted that our detection rate is lower and our conviction rate much lower than it ought to be and that this is at the heart of the matter. I know that, as he said the other day, he does not like hitting out blindly, but there is no need to hit out blindly to realise that here the


balance must be redressed. How will it be done? I think that the right hon. Gentleman must get the central organisation strong enough and ready to fight the sort of war that we have on our hands. I applaud his action in police amalgamations, and all on these benches will do all that we can in our local spheres to assist the right hon. Gentleman in what he is doing, but I am not sure that it will do the trick entirely by itself. For this war an infinitely stronger organisation at the centre will be needed. The right hon. Gentleman ought to think as Lord Kitchener thought in 1914; he ought to reckon with a long war, a five-year war, and to plan his central organisation accordingly. I do not think that in present circumstances the House or the country would refuse him anything for which he could reasonably ask, expensive though it might be. But the Home Secretary will not be forgiven if, for one reason or another at this point, he fails to ask for enough.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken so far have concentrated primarily on the professional criminal and crime of that character. My intention is not to follow them in considering that section of the criminal community, which, as my right hon. Friend said, is numerically a very small proportion of the criminal community, but rather to deal mainly with the very much larger section of the petty, persistent and inadequate criminals.
Before I say anything about that, however, I would say that I agree very much with the proposals made by both the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and my right hon. Friend, and I am struck by the fact that both of them find the principal answer to professionally organised crime in better organisation of the police, better equipment for the police, better methods of detection and, finally, improved methods of securing convictions.
I would be willing—though I would not go as far as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone—to give careful consideration to the extent to which we could, and should, sacrifice some of the liberties and safeguards of the subject in the interests of the protection of the public as a whole.
Neither the right hon. and learned Gentleman nor the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) found the cure—even to the organised professional criminal—in an escalation of punishment, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to stiffer penalties for crimes of violence, and I do not differ from him on that. There is a grave danger in adopting panic measures of escalating penalties. Perhaps it is correct to say that the number of crimes of violence in Birmingham in recent weeks has diminished, as has been suggested in the Press, because organised criminals are no longer patronising Birmingham, but are going to Newcastle or Manchester instead.
This is the first opportunity I have had since the winding up of the Royal Commission on the Penal System for saying something about the other side of crime; that is, the causes and treatment. I have said previously how much I regret that this large-scale, comprehensive investigation had to be closed. I am in no way criticising my right hon. Friend because I feel that he was placed in an invidious and difficult position. However, for the first time in many years we had the opportunity of looking deeply into the causes of crime and producing a comprehensive philosophy for dealing with the matter.
As my colleagues and I on the Royal Commission went around, talking to prison workers, officials of the Home Office, disciplinary officers in the prisons, probation officers, social workers and prisoners themselves we found time and again, when we asked them for their views about the way in which the penal system should operate, they gave the reply, "We are waiting for you to tell us." This is not altogether surprising, because since the Gladstone Commission placed the emphasis on deterrents and rehabilitation, one has found, in practice, that these two criteria so often conflict with one another that it is difficult in a modern penal system to know which has and which ought to have predominance.
One of the classic examples of this conflict is the question of family relations. To be deprived of the consort of one's family is probably the largest single punitive element in imprisonment. Yet to be deprived of that consort is also a factor which makes it probably most


likely that those who are sent to prison will be unable to live an honest life in future. Time and again one finds that the break-up of the family—the inability of the breadwinner to provide for the children, the fact that the children are deprived of their parents, and so on—is a factor that produces crime in future.
If we were looking at this question simply from the point of view of providing the greatest possible deterrent, then we should provide for a minimal intercourse between the prisoner and his family. But if we are looking at it from the point of view of doing that which is most likely to rehabilitate the man and prevent his family from drifting into delinquency in future, the opposite should be our aim, and that is precisely the conflict which must be resolved.
The 150 or more memoranda which the Royal Commission received can be passed on to the Home Office and to the new Advisory Council on the Penal System, which I wish well in its tasks. But what cannot be passed on consists of the effect on our minds of 18 months of meeting people, visiting California and penal institutions, talking among ourselves, forming views and accumulating ideas. Unfortunately, these things are lost as a result of the winding up of this Commission. All that we can do as individuals is our best to give to the public at least the benefit of the views which we have formed.
It was abundantly clear to all who were on the Commission that although, just as a doctor can treat a disease without knowing the causes of it or without fully understanding those causes, none the less he, like those dealing with crime and penology, can deal very much better with these subjects if they understand the causes. Nothing was clearer in the 18 months that the Royal Commission existed than that there is the utmost paucity in our knowledge, statistics and understanding of the causes of crime.
I mentioned the break-up of family life. That is a potent factor, but there are others and I hope very much that one of the early and continuing tasks which my right hon. Friend will give to the new Advisory Council will be that of ensuring that the fullest possible evidence and statistics are made available, to be used,

certainly not in the next year or two or, perhaps, in the next five or 10 years, so that we are able eventually to understand as far as we can what the real causes are. Unless we can understand them, how can we possibly give the right weight to these two considerations of deterrents, on the one hand, and rehabilitation, on the other? Unless we understand what it is that drives a man to crime we are not likely to stop him from committing crimes.
I turn to the question of treatment, and here I will deal virtually entirely with that form of treatment which is carried out within custody. I will put forward four principles which developed in my mind and in the minds of many of my colleagues on the Royal Commission in the course of our investigations, very much as a result of our visit to California. I regret that my right hon. Friend was unable to fulfil an engagement which, I read in the Press, he had to go to California. I hope that he will go there and I wish that I could come with him. I am sure that he will learn a great deal by going there, because he will find a system which, although we would not want to copy slavishly, contains a tremendous lot which we could follow.
These are the four principles regarding custody which I suggest we should follow. The first is that a man or woman should never be placed in custody as a punishment unless it is vital in his or her interests or that of society. I will develop this later. The second is that the whole time of a person's imprisonment should be used for the purpose of sending that person out less likely to be a delinquent in future. The third is that no one should be kept in custody a moment later than is necessary for that purpose. The fourth is that, when custody ends, the job of the Home Office, or whoever is concerned with the criminal, should not end there, but that the transition to a life of responsibility should then begin. I should like to say a little about each of those four principles.
First—no one should suffer custody unless it is vital that he should do so. I do not speak simply of keeping out drunks, drug addicts and vagrants—that goes without saying, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do something


about that aspect in his Bill. I am much more concerned with the very many people who do not need to go to prison at all, for whom prison does nothing whatever, and can do nothing whatever.
I should like to see a very much wider investigation—and again, I hope that my right hon. Friend's Advisory Council will do this as one of its earliest tasks—of alternatives to prison, not only short term, but long term as well. The old Advisory Council for the Treatment of Offenders produced a Report on short-term imprisonment and alternatives to it which I must say I found disappointing, negative and unsatisfactory. I hope that the new Advisory Council will look at this matter with fresh eyes.
There is a great deal to be learned about and thought of in the idea, for example, of sheltered workshops for inadequates; the converse idea of people going out from prison to work rather than being confined within the prison all the time; the idea of what is sometimes called "weekend custody", but which I prefer to call "detention by instalments", and the idea—although I think it may be over-emphasised—of using monetary penalties in lieu of detention. There is sometimes a danger of thinking that monetary penalties or compensation are the answer to a great many things, when the fact is that a very high proportion of those who commit crime would be quite unable to pay the kind of penalties that would be appropriate in the circumstances. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at all these matters again, and very carefully.
The second principle is that the whole of the prisoner's time should be occupied in such a way as to make him a better man to assume responsibility when he comes out. I remember that on one occasion my colleagues and I ask one of the prison governors what he thought was the effect of prison on people. He replied, "We take a man who is an indifferent swimmer, we keep him away from the water for three years or five years, and then we throw him back in at the deep end and expect him to swim." That was a very wise remark.
I agree that we are doing our best within the limit of our resources to improve matters. I hope that we will not think—because there is the danger that

we might—that if we employ people for a full working week no more is required. A very high proportion of these people are inadequate people, they are unable to take responsibility, and have to be trained to take responsibility. I hope that my right hon. Friend, in particular, will see some of the experiments being made in California, and especially the tremendous use by the authorities there of group methods which, if nothing else, tend to break down and cure the loneliness which I believe to be one of the hallmarks of most inadequate criminals, and one of the important causes of crime. Apart from working programmes and group programmes, it is very important that we should train people who have not had any training, or cannot do the job, so that there is something they can do when they go out of prison.
It is important that we should maintain and encourage and foster the relationship between the man and his family when he is within the prison walls. A great deal follows from that, because it means we have to make it easier for that to happen. I do not think that we make it any easier by building our prisons at remote distances from centres of habitation so that families have a long distance to travel any more than we make it easier for people to get work in the local industries by establishing our prisons in that sort of area.
My third point is that no one should be kept in prison a moment longer than necessary. Again and again we found, and were told by those concerned with looking after offenders, that the point at which everything possible has been done to prepare a man for responsibility is the point to choose to send him out into the world—in many, perhaps in most, cases, under some form of supervision—but that if one keeps him in prison substantially longer than that he will from then on go downhill, his desire for responsibility will diminish, and when he returns to the community it will be much less easy for him to discharge his responsibilities as a citizen.
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's ideas for parole, but as they are at the moment they do not, in my view, go far enough. If we are to give full effect to the principles I have mentioned it is necessary to combine this system of parole with a system of, at


any rate, some degree of indeterminacy of sentence, so that we can send the man out when he is ready to go, rather than that he should have a pre-determined length of sentence which can be varied by only a fraction according to the amount of parole he obtains. I do not believe that any doctor would ever say to a patient, "You will go to hospital for six months". Equally, if we are looking for the rehabilitation of offenders, we should not think in terms of fixed periods, but rather of sending offenders out when they are ready to go.
That ties up very much with the point of necessary supervision of the transition stage, perhaps through a sheltered workshop or other such device. Supervision, whether by a parole officer or a probation officer, during the period after the man goes out is completely vital to ensuring that ultimately he assumes proper responsibility. It may be that if we discharge people quickly, and subject to supervision, a percentage will return—that is true in California, where quite a high proportion go back in that period—but I believe that to be very much preferable to sending them out with nothing but the kind of voluntary aftercare which applies to a very large extent today, or even the kind of compulsory after-care, not associated with a parole system, which might possibly take its place.
It may be said that this system of indeterminate or partly indeterminate sentence with parole will not deal with the professional criminal who lives by organised crime. I believe that, on the contrary, the fear of a wholly indeterminate sentence is likely to have a much more profound effect on criminals of that kind, knowing that the length of their sentence will depend in part upon the need for deterrence to be shown by the public, than the existing system of a fixed and determined sentence. I see no difficulty m that criticism.
I am delighted to hear that we are to have a comprehensive Bill this autumn. I am delighted that it will go as far in the direction I should like it to go as has been adumbrated by my right hon. Friend and in the White Paper on the Adult Offender, but I do not believe that until we can establish a really comprehensive penal philosophy of a kind which the

Royal Commission was charged to work out, until we know which way we have to go and are able to start our programme on the basis of that knowledge, we can go very far. I have no real hope that the Advisory Council, which is to be an ad hoc body, will be able to fulfil this function. It may be that the Law Commission can go some way towards it, as was suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Marylebone. I hope that one way or another my right hon. Friend will not make decisions on a basis of dealing with the problem of the moment rather than looking at the heart of the problem which the Royal Commission was designed to look at. I am confident that a Home Secretary with the liberality of my right hon. Friend will look at the matter in the way I have suggested. It is only the means to enable him to do so which cause me some doubts.

6.2 p.m.

Sir Richard Glyn: I was very happy to hear the Home Secretary speak of his plans for wide-ranging measures to be taken in the autumn. I am sure that we all hope these will prove effective.
There was one small point he made after that which I feel bound to take up. He commented on the fact that the number of murders had not increased contrary, I think he said, to the expectation of some people—or words to that effect. Of course the expectation expressed by myself, among others, was that the number of capital murders would increase, or the number of what had been capital murders. I do not think anyone who looks at the figures for the past seven or eight years will deny that they have increased quite substantially over the average for the last six or seven years. We have to hope that this increase will not continue but I, for one, have a very unhappy feeling that it will.
I was entirely in agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman said about deterrence. He said that this depended first on detection, and secondly, on the proportion of convictions. I think there is a third factor, the treatment of the prisoner after he has been convicted. One was delighted to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the new methods of police work and increased efficiency. I wondered whether he had thought of a step which I believe would further greatly


increase that efficiency and also improve their relations with the public. That is if the rather unhappy duties of correcting motorists could be taken out of the ordinary run of police duties by an extension of what are now known as traffic wardens.
I believe that nothing has done more to cause dissatisfaction—to use a very mild word—between perfectly honest members of the public and the police than the action that the police feel bound to take under the present laws affecting motorists. A policeman's duty is more to direct his activities against dishonest or violent people than against motorists who, although in some cases they may sometimes drive dangerously, come in an entirely different category of citizens for the most part.
In regard to increasing the proportion of convictions, a certain amount has been said already about changes in procedure. I shall suggest one or two further changes which might perhaps be considered and also what might be done after conviction in certain cases. In welcoming the news that we are to have majority verdicts by juries, I wonder whether, when the time comes to consider the whole of the jury system, if possible the present number of jurors, 12, might be looked at. I believe this goes back almost to the Norman Conquest. That does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, but it does not necessarily argue that it is right. One would have thought that in this day and age, especially with the great inconvenience which long cases cause the juries, the number might safely be reduced.
The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), in an interesting speech, referred to the necessity of trying to find the root causes of crime. With that I agree except to say that there are a great number of such causes. He spoke of the prisoner who needs help, but one should not forget the large number who choose a criminal career for reasons which perhaps up to now we do not understand. The size of the problem is difficult to grasp. Last weekend a number of newspapers gave publicity to a report which said that last year £42 million worth of property was stolen by the commission of indictable offences. I was able, with the help of the Library, to get hold of the original document

which published the figures, the Security Gazette. This is based on reports from chief constables and is, I believe, the only organ of this nature in the country.
It showed that property stolen by indictable offences alone was worth £42 million, but it went on to say that the amount obtained by fraud was not certainly known. The best police experts believe that it was not less than the same amount. That adds up to over £80 million. It went on to say that by the best estimates of chief constables of petty pilfering and other offences which were not always reported must amount to between £75 million and £100 million more. So what we are dealing with is a loss to the country of well over £160 million last year.
The most disquieting fact I find in this publication is that almost every form of crime showed sharp increases which are reflected in the official figures. These increases are not evenly spread. The Security Gazette showed that in the Metropolitan area thefts of property increased by 23 per cent. over the year before, but losses by robbery last year were up by 83 per cent. on the previous year. This breaks down to about 27 per cent. more cases of robbery and approximately 50 per cent. more gained in each case. The report goes on to say:
It will be surprising if the incidence of robbery does not rise sharply.
That, perhaps, is an under-statement. The total amount taken by robbers in the Metropolitan area is quoted as over £2 million last year, of which less than 9 per cent. is estimated to have been recovered. These are startling figures. These increases are not limited to London although they are less great in other parts of the country. Smaller but significant increases are shown everywhere. In Dorset where, until I became a Member of this House, I served for a number of years on the quarter sessions, I find that the cases are not only more numerous than they were in my day but they are also more serious. I believe the country is now faced with a hard core of dedicated professional criminals some of whom are in what the Home Secretary described as the "managerial class". A little lower down the criminal scale from the managerial class come the ordinary run of hard-core criminals whom in days gone by I had to try and, before that,


to prosecute or defend. One saw accomplished professional criminals who regarded prison as an occupational hazard. They knew full well that they would spend a proportion of their careers in prison; how much of their lives they spend inside depended upon their skill and good fortune. They regarded prison, I will not say without distaste, but with no great apprehension.
Prison was a place where they met their friends and where they exchanged techniques in criminality. It was a sort of university of crime. Many crimes, and some of the most serious, have been planned in prison. In some cases, especially now that the regulations governing talking have been so greatly relaxed, prison cells are nothing less than operational headquarters from which a future series of crimes is being planned at this very moment. This is not satisfactory. I say at once that these comments do not apply to the majority of inmates of prison who are not in this grade of crime, but they apply to a hard core of dedicated professional criminals.
The statistics show clearly that our present methods are simply not adequate. We have already heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) of the alarming increase in the use of firearms by criminals. This is a matter which I have frequently raised, and I appeal yet again to the Home Office to take adequate steps, especially with regard to sawn-off shotguns, which seem to me to feature more and more in hold-ups of all kinds.
My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of witnesses being approached and of jurymen requiring police protection. This is reported in the papers, not occasionally, but increasingly often. Before the war such things were unheard of. I should like to know what steps the Home Office will take to check these sinister developments which, if they are not checked, will threaten the whole foundation of our system of criminal law.
Last week the B.B.C. initiated an important television programme in which two very senior lawyers, members of previous Administrations, were interviewed by Robin Day and made some interesting suggestions. It was suggested, for example, that if a suspected person

refused to make a statement to the police or to give evidence at his trial, the prosecuting counsel should be free to comment on this fact. I suggest that in certain cases, with which I will deal presently, this would be an improvement on our present procedure. An innocent person has nothing to lose by making a statement or by going into the witness box. A really innocent person has everything to gain by making the fullest possible disclosure to the police and letting them check it.
The participants in the B.B.C. programme also suggested that when an accused person has recent convictions for similar offences, evidence of this fact should be admissible in his case. It was stressed, however, that offences of a different nature or committed long before should not be included. A further suggestion was that the Scots doctrine of law affecting alibis should be adopted south of the Border. This was described as being that, where a prisoner relies upon an alibi, he should be bound to produce it to the prosecution at the earliest possible moment so that it can be checked.
I doubt whether those three suggestions are entirely acceptable for the ordinary run of cases—possibly they go a little too far. We have to protect the liberty of the subject, and this is an important point that must never be lost sight of. Nevertheless, I ask the Home Secretary to consider seriously whether these procedures or something like them might not be permitted at the trial of a hardcore professional criminal. To do this, it would be necessary to take an entirely new step and to have two sorts of criminal proceedings for people in different categories. This would be something entirely new but surely not, for that reason, entirely wrong.
If one wants to make sure that professional criminals with their great experience and considerable knowledge of legal procedure do not evade the responsibility for what they have done, they should not be allowed to shelter behind the protection which is provided for the use of ordinary, honest citizens who are not at all in the same category. Professional criminals who have chosen to wage war against the community should be prevented from using these procedures which are designed to protect ordinary, honest citizens.
Less than 40 per cent. of all crimes last year were cleared up. Too many dedicated criminals who are brought into court succeed in escaping, perhaps because the jury is kind-hearted or because of their great and professional knowledge of criminal procedure. It could be that in some cases they succeed because witnesses have been terrorised.
I suggest that the Home Secretary should set a standard. It should be for him to say what it should be, but he might, for example, set a standard of three convictions for indictable offences involving dishonesty or violence in aid of dishonesty within a period of, perhaps, five years, time in prison not to count, so that, anyone would be notified by the judge at his third conviction that as from that moment he had come into the category of a professional hard-core criminal and that, should he come before the court again, he would lose his right of silence and of not going into the witness box. He would be in the position that the prosecution could give evidence of recent similar crimes which he had committed. This in itself would be the greatest possible deterrent to a person of that character, who would realise that if he was involved in trouble again, he would have great difficulty in escaping from it.
I accept that that is an innovation and something quite new, but so are the steps that the criminals take. We did not have jurymen and witnesses intimidated and bribed until now. These new and altogether rougher methods on the part of criminals call for a definite step on the part of the Home Secretary on behalf of the citizens, who need to be protected against the skilled professional criminals.
The punishment should also be effective and should fit the criminal rather than be tailored to fit the crime. If a man with a record of a long series of violent, dangerous crimes is brought before the court for committing a lesser offence and on the same day a normally honest citizen has committed a similar offence is brought before the court, it would be absurd to suggest that they should both receive the same sentence, and I do not believe that many courts would impose this.
I give that example to show what I mean. I suggest that dedicated hardcore criminals, once they had been so

pronounced, should be in danger of rather longer sentences, although I agree that these should be mitigated by a parole system if they show genuine signs of a wish to turn over a new leaf and start again in an honest life.
A small alteration in the current administration arrangements which would greatly assist courts in assessing sentences would be that where a prisoner has a record of previous convictions, it should in every case include the dates on which he or she was released from prison as well as the dates on which he was last convicted or admitted an offence. Usually the date of the offence is given, but very often the date of release from prison is not given. The interval between these two dates is of tremendous importance to the court in assessing to what extent the prisoner has made a genuine effort to go straight after his last term in prison.
I consider it necessary that these professional hard-core criminals should be segregated as much as possible when they are in prison. They should have less privileges of conversation, especially with other less contaminated prisoners. I have reason to think that recruiting is done in prison by hard-core professional criminals who, perhaps, want two or three young men to drive cars or to take a minor part in a scheme which they are planning. This should be stopped as far as possible.
I also think that there should be greater facilities for assisting a professional hard-core criminal or anyone else who really shows signs of wishing to reform. I believe there comes a time in the careers of criminals, professional and otherwise, when they begin to wonder whether the game is worth the candle and whether they should not consider turning over a new leaf. It is important that anyone who shows the slightest genuine and sincere sign of this should be helped to the utmost. In view of the amount of money that crime is costing this country we should do a lot to help the man who wishes to go straight. I realise that there are organisations, such as the New Bridge, to which hon. Members and others belong. But more could be done. Retired probation officers with experience of the major prisons in London and other large conurbations could do wonderful work on a part-time basis by visiting prisons and seeing those prisoners who


wish to see them. They, with their great experience, would know very soon whether a person had a genuine wish to reform.
We must press these professional criminals who carry out such a disproportionate amount of crime and inflict such a disproportionate amount of the total amount of hardship and loss on the public. We must make their lives more difficult, and if possible less profitable, and at the same time we must make it easier for any of them to reform if they show a sincere wish to do so. I hope that with the measures which the Home Secretary has outlined, the Government will succeed in achieving these results. We are watching to see whether they will.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. David Ensor: The House as a whole will realise that today we are faced with a grave social problem. I am sure that we were interested to hear from the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) of the percentage rise that has taken place in a number of categories of crimes in the last few years. What the general public ought to realise is the fantastic increase that has occurred since 1938, the last full year before the war. Some categories have gone up 100 per cent. and some have gone up 200 and 300 per cent. In the case of larceny from unattended motor vehicles the offence has gone up by no less than 740 per cent.
The increase in crimes of violence, sexual offences and all offences in which there is some element of drink or drugs is truly alarming, and I think it would be fair to say that while we in this House bear some responsibility for not having taken action earlier, there is a great responsibility on the members of the public who have failed in their duty to bring up their children as they ought to have done.
I should like to refer to three points—the prevention of crime, the administration of justice and the treatment of convicted persons. I am sure that most of us will agree that the criminal law as it stands today is in a mess. It needs codification, clarification and to be put into language that most people, apart from us lawyers, can understand.
However, if I may say so, there is another aspect in regard to juries apart from the corruption of one or two. A situation which existed for a considerable amount of time is the irresponsibility of juries. That existed before the war. I should like to refer to a conversation that I once had with one of our criminal judges, the late Mr. Justice Humphreys, when I raised this matter with him. Although the answer is perhaps slightly amusing, it has a great strain of common sense in it. I asked him why we were having difficulty in getting convictions from juries, particularly in the bad offences like being drunk in charge of a car and certain sexual offences. He said, "Because half the jury do not believe it could have happened and the other half do it themselves." This is to some extent true, and until we can get some sort of responsibility into the people who are called to sit upon juries we shall always have this problem with us.
I recently undertook a tour through Europe to discover for myself some of the problems. Being aware that we had a ghastly problem on our hands here, I wanted to know what other countries were doing about it, if anything. As a result of my investigations at that time I was in some doubt as to the efficacy of the jury system at all. I saw working perfectly well in a number of European countries a system which had no jury. The trial was conducted either by three judges or by a judge and two assessors. I am not one of those who regard the jury system as it exists in this country today as being utterly and completely sacrosanct. Possibly my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may be right when he suggests having a majority verdict, but I am not with him entirely when he mentions the figures of 10 to two. Those figures should be considered with some considerable care.
On the prevention of crime, I am and always have been firmly convinced that two of the greatest deterrents are detection and conviction. Detection, of course, depends on a highly efficient police force and one which is above suspicion. I think that, generally speaking, we can congratulate ourselves on the efficiency of our police forces and their lack of corruption. Every walk of life has its black sheep, but I think that the police are, on the whole, singularly free from them. What we are suffering from


is a grave lack of numbers, and I think it is absolutely essential that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should look as a matter of urgency into the whole question of recruitment, payment and salary scales for police officers.
My third and last point concerns the treatment of convicted persons. I should like briefly to refer to two aspects of this subject, from the juvenile side and from the adult side. When I was conducting this investigation throughout Europe I was amazingly impressed by the vast amount of work that was going into the prevention of crime amongst juveniles. After all, if we get an enormous increase in serious crime amongst juveniles, it will ultimately have a very serious effect on the adult figures. In Holland, in the Scandinavian countries, Belgium, and in the Soviet Union and Spain they have a completely separate department in their ministries of justice devoted entirely to dealing with juveniles, with the ultimate intention that they should be kept from committing offences.
There are child welfare boards in those countries. The countries are split into areas so that those boards are in a position to know a great deal about the children within their jurisdiction. I was very impressed with those methods which went a long way towards preventing children from committing crimes and leading a life of crime. In view of the appalling increase in the consumption of drink and drugs, it is highly important that we should exercise much more care and effort and spend a great deal more money in dealing with problems of juvenile delinquency in this country. A short, sharp sentence is probably the ultimate deterrent for juveniles when everything else has failed. Our detention centres are going some way to dealing with the situation, but not far enough. The period of detention should be extended to at least 12 months. The amount of work that the detainees are made to do should be increased, and we should also look into the problems of their diet.
The question of what we are to do with the persistent sexual offender is a very serious problem. I draw the attention of the House to the case of a man—I shall not mention his name—who a few years ago was sentenced to 12 years' preventive detention for the rape of a girl

of 11 and indecent assault on a number of girls under the age of 12. This man's record is interesting because it illustrates so well the absurdity of our present methods of dealing with people of this kind. At the time of his last conviction he was 42 years of age. In 1931 he was bound over for indecent assault. In 1939 he received three months' imprisonment for indecent assault. In 1943 he got four years' penal servitude for carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 16. In 1946 he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude for rape of a girl of 12.
As far as I know, he is the only person convicted of rape while serving a sentence in prison, because he happened to be working outside the prison wall at the time. In 1950, he received 18 months' imprisonment for indecent assault on a 12-year-old girl. In 1952 he was sentenced to eight years' preventive detention for indecent assault on an eight-year-old girl, followed, in about 1960, by his 12 years' preventive detention for rape again. What are we going to do with people like that?
The only difference between that man and the child murderer Straffen is the degree of pressure of a finger and thumb on a child's throat. This man will be out again at the age of about 50 and I suggest that it is a fair bet that within two or three weeks he will be back again possibly for murder.
When I was in Copenhagen I had many and long talks with Dr. Georg Stürüp, probably the world's leading psychiatrist, and we talked about these sort of cases. Dr. Stürüp had tried hormone treatment but that was unsuccessful. He had eventually tried a small operation, not castration, which relieves the strain on these sort of people, who, up to a point, cannot help themselves. This is the sort of case that we should investigate most carefully to find some way to avoid littering our prisons with those people, who will be back again for the same sort of offence soon after coming out. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take some of these points into consideration.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a terrible social problem for which we have a grave responsibility, but I want to make it plain that the parents of this country also have a grave responsibility,


because it is the breakdown in family life, the "couldn't care less" attitude, the complete moral breakdown of a great number of our population which is causing a vast amount of distress, a vast amount of crime and a vast amount of misery throughout the country.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: We have had a very interesting debate. The speech of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) contained some interesting, provocative ideas, as did that of the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). The hon. and learned Member's words, not all of which I agree with, indicated that the 18 months for which the Royal Commission, of which he was a member, sat have not been wasted. I add my voice to his protest at the fact that the Royal Commission was not allowed to continue its work. It is a great loss to the country and a tragedy that the Royal Commission, under its magnificent chairman, and with some very able members, the majority of whom wanted to continue with their work, was not allowed to continue. Abolishing it was an unprecedented and unnecessary step. How tragic a step it was was indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman's fascinating speech, which we shall want to read and study in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and which shows the worth-whileness of the work being done by the Royal Commission.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made a brilliant speech, in which he put forward Ten Commandments as he sees them relative to this whole matter. I hope that his speech will be well heeded on the benches opposite. We also heard an interesting address by the Home Secretary, who took this opportunity to reveal to us certain matters which are welcome.
This leads me to my first point, namely, the fact that we have totally inadequate opportunities in the House of discussing Home Office affairs, police affairs and crime. Nothing could be more illustrative of this than the situation with which we are confronted today. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, three documents of very great importance have been published in the past week or so: the criminal statistics; the Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

for the year 1965; and the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for the year 1965. Now, in addition, we have had the compendious First Report from the Estimates Committee published last Wednesday.
Each of these documents could well provide the foundation for a full-scale debate, yet it is only because of the sound sense of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we have any opportunity during the whole of this Parliament to have a general debate on crime. I am sure that hon. Members opposite agree that it was a wise decision to raise the matter today and have at least a short debate.

Mrs. Renée Short (Wolverhampton, North-East): Much too short.

Mr. Buck: Much too short, I agree. That is why I am talking with such great rapidity, to try to pack in as much as I can without stealing too much of the time which other hon. Members on both sides wish to use.
We commend the fact that the criminal statistics came out a little earlier than usual this year. We are extremely glad that these statistics and the reports of the Commissioner of Police and Her Majesty's Inspector are before us, but I ask that they be brought out a little earlier still. It seems appropriate that they should be brought out at the end of May. We should then be able to consider them in June and have a full-scale two-day debate on crime and matters pertaining to all this material in July as a set feature.
I also ask the Front Bench opposite to consider whether we should have something in the nature of a "Home defence" White Paper from the Home Office every year. This sort of theme was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) who suggested a White Paper now to precede the Criminal Justice Bill which we are to have. This we should certainly have.
I am glad to see the Home Secretary back in his place, because I wish to ask him most seriously to consider, if he is still Home Secretary next year, whether we should have an annual "Home Defence" White Paper, broadly corresponding to the Defence White Paper which deals with the whole of our Armed


Forces. We rightly have ample opportunity in the House to debate matters concerning the armed services and to consider the impact of a possible aggression on this country. But there is a veritable war in our own country to preserve law and order, and we have scant opportunity to debate it.
I hope that these points will be noted and taken seriously by the Government. I am certain that a regular full-scale two-day debate in July, based on the Reports I have mentioned and on a Home Office White Paper, would be a thoroughly useful innovation and would make time properly available to the House so that we could thrash out the infinite number of matters raised by these Reports, all of which we would wish to consider in far greater detail than we can today.
One of the keys to the whole problem of crime, and particularly organised professional crime which my right hon. and learned Friend rightly made the theme of his speech, lies in the police forces themselves. It is the police who are the front line troops in the action. I am glad to see that from both Reports, the one from the Commissioner and the one from the Chief Inspector, there comes bursting forth pride in the services with which they are concerned. The Commissioner says:
I am proud to report that nearly every one of them"—
that is, the officers with whom he is concerned—
has a great pride in his job which he carries out with professional zeal and devotion not always present in other walks of life".
Similarly, the Chief Inspector pays tribute to the officers which are his concern:
I record without hesitation the complete confidence of H.M. Inspectors of Constabulary in the service which has faced increasingly difficult problems with loyalty and determination.
This ought to be commended in the House. It is time it was said in this debate.
Those of us who come into regular contact with the police—sometimes, on instructions, I have to cross-examine police officers in a way which, if I had my personal preference, I would not do, and at other times I appear for them—have a great admiration for the efficiency and devotion of the police service. This

message ought to go out from the House today. Of course, there is found the occasional black sheep, but this happens in any institution or organisation.
The key issue here—the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe mentioned it—is the lack of numbers and the difficulty in recruiting people of the right calibre into our police forces. Because of the absurdly short time at our disposal today, I cannot go fully into the detailed statistics, but it is interesting to note from the Chief Inspector's Report that there were only 77 recruits into the police last year who had passes in two or more subjects at Advanced level in the General Certificate of Education—a very small number indeed—and only about 772 who had passes in five or more G.C.E. subjects at Ordinary level out of a total intake of some 5,500 recruits commencing initial training during the year.
I suggest three ways which might help us in recruiting generally and, in particular, in recruiting people of the right calibre into the police force. First—I realise that this brings me into some conflict with the Police Federation—I suggest that we look again at the absolute rule that a constable shall serve four years before he can be promoted to sergeant. I am absolutely devoted to the proposition that a police officer should serve some time, an appreciable time, on the beat, but I do not believe that it should be a firmly prescribed time. In practice, a few officers would be able to gain promotion in less than four years. In my view, there should not be an absolute ban on any promotion before four years' service as a constable. I regard the inevitability of the four-year period as a deterrent which causes at least some people who contemplate going into the police to decide not to do so. I would like to see this question dealt with as part of a package deal with the Police Federation in which the police had a large increase of pay, and so forth.
Second, we should change the title "sergeant" for that existing rank in the police force. I am able to speak without fear of recrimination from all the noncommissioned officers in my constituency—I represent a garrison town—because I had the high privilege of serving a substantial part of my Army career as a


sergeant. But I know that the responsibilities which I and my fellow sergeants carried in the Army bore virtually no relation to the enormous responsibilities carried by a sergeant in the police force. The present nomenclature gives an erroneous idea of the responsibilities of a sergeant.
We have the mothers to consider here, too. If an Army career and a police career are being considered side by side for a young man, both the mother and the young man will notice that, by the time he is 27, if he goes into the police, he may well be a sergeant, but if he goes into the Army he may well be a captain. There is regrettably the "snob" side of it to remember as well.
This is my second practical proposal, that the name "sergeant" be changed. Let us call the sergeant something else—sub-inspector, lieutenant inspector, whatever it may be—and in one fell swoop we shall remove another deterrent to recruiting.
Our present police structure will leave us in grave difficulties also in recruiting large numbers of police officers from the universities. It is a great pity that in Essex, for instance, there is only one graduate police officer and he is the chief constable. There are all the difficulties of coming into the service late after going into university, and so on, and the present system puts various problems in the way of attracting university graduates. Let us try, by all means, but if it proves still to be difficult, let us make sure that there are substantial opportunities for people, once in the police force, to go to a university. We have no time now to consider such possibilities as re-establishing the Police College in its old rôle, and so on, but let us at least consider taking the step of greatly increasing—at least trebling, as a start—the number of opportunities for scholarships to universities. Let us expand the Bramshill scholarship system which exists now. At the moment, the number of scholarships is absurdly small. The Chief Inspector's Report tells us that there were five places made available at University College, London, and three at the London School of Economics. A total of only eight is quite ridiculous. The Home Secretary should at once get

in touch with the new universities to consider how the scheme can be expanded out of all recognition.
Those are three practical suggestions which I put to the Government. I am certain that they could have substantial beneficial effects on recruiting almost at once.
I greatly welcome the Home Secretary's announcement today about juries and majority verdicts. On a point of detail, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us what the proportion is to be when one member of a jury drops out and the trial continues with 11. This is an important point of detail which should be cleared up fairly soon.
I believe in the jury system. It is right that it should be maintained. But I believe that the reforms announced and the implementation, or part-implementation, of the Morris Report now envisaged will go a long way to remove the evils which have made themselves manifest. They will, I am sure, work well. They will help to prevent members of juries being "nobbled", and juries will continue to behave, as the vast majority of them do, in a most responsible way. I cannot accept the aspersions sometimes cast upon them, as, for example, the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe did. The jury system is certainly not sacrosanct, and I believe that it can be improved, and I am delighted that it is at last to be improved and modernised.
I repeat that we ought to have a regular debate in the House on the state of crime in our nation, but we can secure a marked improvement in the national climate only if there is real leadership from the Government. The Government should be setting an example in showing a healthy respect for our great institutions, but this they have not done recently. They should show an absolute respect for truth, but this they have not done recently. I invite the right hon. Lady the Minister of State to pass these observations on to her hon. and learned Friend and ask him to deal with the whole question of police pay when he winds up, because it seems that our police officers are to be badly let down again.
I would remind the House of the vigorous speech which the Chairman of the


Police Federation made at its last conference. He said:
If any attempt is made to fob off the police at this time of crisis"—
He had the crisis of crime in mind, not the financial crisis——
with a diluted pay award in which we are sacrificial lambs on the altar of an incomes policy, no one on this National Executive of the Police Federation will be prepared to take responsibility for what will happen to the police of this country. This is a very plain message. Come September we want a very plain answer.
We want an indication today what that answer is likely to be.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. William Price: I am glad of the opportunity to speak on a matter of grave public concern. We are in the middle of a crime wave unprecedented in this country. I illustrate the point by quoting figures. In 1957 there were 545,562 indictable offences. By 1965, less than eight years later, the figure had risen to 1,133,882, an increase of well over 100 per cent.
It is right that at this stage I should declare an interest. We have heard a great many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen from the legal profession. I belong to the other profession that operates in courts—the court and crime reporters. I have known many barristers and also many criminals, and lots of them are good friends of mine—both barristers and criminals. I have seen criminals start at a very early age and make their way through the normal progression of a broad State education, starting with conditional discharges and ending up with 10 or 12 years' preventive detention.
I have seen many lives ruined, but all these persons, friends and foes, knew one thing—that if they got caught they could expect no sympathy whatsoever from me. I have seen too many victims to feel pity for the criminals. I have seen old people robbed of their life's savings. I have seen honest decent citizens beaten into submission for virtually no reason at all. I have seen young girls forced to give evidence in assize courts in the most wicked rape cases. I have seen animals mutilated beyond belief. There is no end to it, and it is by no means a pleasant sight.
Why has this situation arisen? There are many reasons. I should like to deal

with one. There can be no doubt that television and the newspapers have played a vital part. I am sure that many ideas have been planted in many heads. I quote from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, who said in his report for 1965:
There is little doubt that whilst the publicity given to crime and police methods for dealing with it retains such a high news and entertainment value, it will also be a source of encouragement and enlightenment to many with criminal inclinations".
I believe that to be true. I also believe that it is time that we dealt with this problem.
Criminals consider two very simple factors: "Shall I get caught?" and "If I get caught, will it be worth my while? How long shall I get?" It is true that the detection rate is going down. The police are often criticised. But I am surprised that they catch as many people as they do. I could make a very successful criminal indeed. I do not believe that the police would catch me very often, not because I am clever or because they are stupid, but because in the past the whole system has been geared in favour of the criminal and against the police.
There is a great deal to be done in the short term to build up the police forces, to provide better equipment and better facilities and to reduce the multitude of restrictions—this is important—which make the job of the police almost impossible. In the short term we need much more severe punishments. If people set out to break the law, then they must accept the consequences. We must have greater consistency of punishments not only in the magistrates' courts, where we hear so much criticism, but at quarter sessions and assizes as well. There is a good deal of inconsistency in the highest courts in this land. I find a feeling among criminals that Parliament is going soft, although I think they would make an exception in the case of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). It is not often that I agree with him. We have a duty to the vast majority of people in this country who wish to lead decent, peaceful and honest lives.
I am neither a pervert, I hope, nor a sadist. I shall not be popular with the majority of hon. Members on this side of the House, but I am going to say what I have to say nevertheless. I am bound to suggest that there may be a formidable


case for the reintroduction or limited forms of corporal punishment. The hon. Member for Louth asked last week what the Home Secretary intended to do about it, and the reply was that he did not believe in hitting out blindly. Neither do I. But I would hit out in certain cases where violence has been used and where other forms of punishment have failed.
We have a responsibility to criminals as well. I wonder whether some of my former associates now serving very long terms of imprisonment might not have benefited from a thrashing at some stage during their illustrious careers. There is nothing more depressing than to sit in court on a fine summer's day and see a young man sent down for 10 years. It has happened time and time again. The figures prove beyond any doubt that the velvet glove treatment of recent years has not worked. The time is rapidly coming—and if we do not move towards it, public opinion will force us into it—when we shall have to consider whether or not we are doing our duty.
I believe that the Home Secretary should do a number of things, and I should like to deal with just two of them. I believe that he should instruct magistrates, recorders and judges to pay more attention to the maximum sentences laid down by Parliament. There is a strange reluctance in many cases to give the convicted person more than a minimal sentence as opposed to the type of maximum sentence that the House felt necessary to impose.
I also believe that the Home Secretary should raise the police force to the status that it deserves. Of course policeman go wrong—that has been mentioned time and time again today—and the rest of them stand condemned as a result. I know bad coppers. I have heard them talking about their exploits in the cells where a good old-fashioned thrashing did not go amiss. I have known policemen who have pursued grudges against certain individuals without justification. I have known policemen who have perjured themselves in court. But, with these very few exceptions, police officers are doing a magnificent job in the face of overwhelming difficulties. They have to contend with bad conditions, overwork, a curious form of public resentment, a

criminal who will gladly ruin a police officer's career if he thinks that it will get him acquitted and shabby lawyers anxious to make a quick name.
I am amazed that the morale of the police force is as high as it is, but I warn Parliament not to push its luck. The day is coming, if it has not already arrived, when the police will turn a blind eye. Why should a young police officer go down a dark alleyway and get the thrashing of a lifetime if he cannot be assured of the support of the public, the judiciary and Parliament? People will not easily forgive us if we do not say clearly and loudly that crime does not pay.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price), although there was much in it with which I could not possibly agree. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly that the prime duty of Parliament is to ensure the safety of society for the law-abiding citizen and if, like the hon. Gentleman, I believed that corporal punishment was a means of achieving that end, I would support him in what he said.
I ask him to look again at the Report of the Royal Commission which considered corporal punishment after the war. The Report showed that when the histories of those flogged or beaten by court order were compared with those dealt with in other ways for similar offences, the later careers of those flogged or beaten showed greater violence than those who had been sent to prison.
On one thing I am sure we agree—the present high rate of crime and low rate of detection. It is not so much whether the amount of crime is or is not over 1 million offences, but the fact that, as with all graphs, one has to see which way the trend is going. The serious aspect of today is that the trend in crime is going up while the trend in detection is going down. For the last two years running under 40 per cent. of crimes have been cleared up.
We therefore come to the inevitable answer that the lesson is that too many people are getting away with crime. But there is another factor which one can draw from other aspects of the reports which have been published. This is the


clear corollary between the rate of detection and the under-manning of the police force in particular areas. For example, the Metropolitan Police is 26 per cent. below establishment and the detection rate is at the appallingly low figure of 21·3 per cent. That is no criticism of the Metropolitan Police, who are doing a magnificent job, but there is a clear corollary, as I said, between the number of police in an area and the successful rate of crime detection.
Therefore, it seems that the first essential must always be the provision of adequate numbers of policemen. I listened with interest to what the Home Secretary said about the methods used and the steps taken to improve police efficiency. But, while improving efficiency, we have also to find means of improving the overall number, and today we are 18,000 policemen short. I bitterly regret that the economic situation into which the Government have led us means that the police pay increase due in September will have to be foregone, for I believe that this will be a substantial disincentive to the recruitment of more police.
In looking realistically and, I hope constructively, in the short-term at the problem—and excepting the facts that the police are under strength and that we have had a substantial crime wave—I want to suggest one or two things which could possibly be done. First, is the better use of existing police time. I hope that the Home Secretary will carefully consider the comments of the Estimates Committee on the use of police officers as ushers in courts, which seems unnecessary, and the extension of the use of traffic wardens, as already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn).
I hope that in the Criminal Justice Bill, which is to be a compendious Measure, the Home Secretary will find room to introduce reform into the system of committal proceedings. I have mentioned this before and the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say, in answer to a Question, that he had studied, among others, the pamphlet that Mr. Edward Gardner and I wrote on this subject. I believe that reform of committal proceedings would reduce a considerable amount of unnecessary time spent by the police in the courts.
Since time is short, I want to turn now to court procedure. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce majority verdicts. On balance, I believe this to be right, but I want to issue a warning. Having heard the speeches in this debate, I hope that we shall not be swept away by such a tide of determination to put an end to professional crime in particular areas that we may at the same time sweep away the judicial system we have had so long.
As someone who has spent as much time in the last 12 years as anyone else in this debate in the ordinary criminal courts, it seems to me that, on the whole, the jury system works very well. I have been impressed time and again by the obvious amount of care that juries take in coming to their decisions. I do not believe that in the rest of the country there is the same problem with regard to juries as we have heard exists in London. Therefore, while welcoming the decision on majority verdicts, let us remember the amount of good that the jury system has done and ensure that in our determination to deal with professional crime we do not sweep away all the rights and liberties of the individual.
We should also review the procedure with regard to the right of silence by the accused. I have never understood why the prosecution should not be entitled to comment upon the failure of an accused man to give evidence. He is not bound to give evidence, but if he chooses not to do so surely the prosecution should have the right to comment on the fact to the jury.
I also believe that the words of the present caution should be changed and that the Judges' Rules also require changing because, at the moment, they are tying the hands of the police too tightly in investigating crime. I believe that there is no reason why one should not cross-examine a man in a criminal court on the basis that he is now giving evidence that he had an opportunity of making earlier to the police in their inquiries. I believe, also, that by this means, we would ensure the conviction of the guilty, which I accept is as equally important to the end of justice as ensuring the acquittal of the innocent.
I found myself in agreement with almost all of the very interesting speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). The House has to


accept that, as we are faced with organised crime, so we are to expect that the sentences given by the courts are likely to get longer and longer. We have to rid ourselves of the idea that there is something horrific in the sentence of 30 years given to the train robbers. If people act as enemies of society, they must be dealt with as enemies of society.
But, equally, the corollary to that is the principle that the punishment is in the deprivation of liberty and that once a punishment has been given and there has been the deterrent effect of the long-term sentence, from the moment the person is in prison, the whole aim must be to let him come out less likely to commit crime than at the time when he went to prison. I am not sure who it was, but someone once said that it was easy to imprison, but difficult to release, and that is something which we ought all to remember.
I hope that it will not be thought that in arguing for a reform of the penal system I am adopting the "soft" approach. It is the realistic approach. It is also necessary for these purposes to see that we rid the prisons of many of the people who ought not now to be there. The most important need at the moment is the provision of hostels for adult offenders and hostels for the elderly, inadequate recidivist, rather than keeping them, at great cost to the State, in overcrowded prisons when they could be working outside under supervision in open surroundings. We have to get rid of sending drunks to prison and we have to find other means of dealing with people who fail to pay their civil debts. We also have to review the level of fines and, in particular, to realise that the maximum of £100 which can be imposed by a magistrate's court for any offence is inadequate.
I welcome the Government's proposals for dealing with adult offenders and for the release on licence of long-term prisoners. But who will have the duty of looking after those who are out on licence? I think that it will be the probation service. Undoubtedly, it will be on the Probation Service that we shall impose a far greater load at a time when it is over-stretched and undermanned. The aim of 3,500 probation officers by 1970 is now a dream which has no hope of achievement. The wastage from the

probation service over recent years has been substantial, as the Minister of State knows.
I return to what I said at the beginning—that we have a farcical situation over the pay award to the Probation Service when six-sevenths of the service has had a pay award back-dated to January, 1966, while the other seventh, because it was still going through the process of negotiation, is now to have the increase, which it would have had back-dated to January, frozen for six months, so that the senior probation officer will be paid less than the ordinary probation officer, so that the man who has taken promotion may earn less than the man who has not.
The Minister of State smiles. I hope that she will tell me that my figures are wrong and that the Home Secretary has managed to persuade the Prime Minister to allow him to make an exception in this case, but I doubt it. Another tragic result of the economic mess of the country is that people like this will suffer.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: It may be an indication of the somewhat sweeping judgments which this subject invites that in the debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) I find myself unreservedly on the side of the hon. Member for Runcorn.
Every hon. Member who has participated in the debate so far has sought to emphasise the magnitude of the problem which we are facing and if I seek to place the emphasis rather differently it is because there is no need for another voice to emphasise the problem. I hope that it will not be taken that I am suggesting that there is any room for complacency.
In his very interesting and, in some respects, moderate speech, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) used the expression "the corruption of our society" and, on a number of occassions, spoke of "winning the war". I am a little apprehensive about some of the headlines which we might see in tomorrow's newspapers. It would be surprising if there were not some increase in crime. We are living in a society in which people are driven by various pressures to leave their families


and their roots to go to the new industrial centres.
They go to conurbations where they have no friends and possibly only the less desirable elements are waiting for them. When, to that, are added modern innovations in transport and inventions of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) it is not surprising if the result is an increase in those tensions which give rise to increases in crime.
I am not suggesting any return to a mythical golden age. This is simply one of the prices which we may have to pay for the undoubted benefits of living in an affluent society. One of the interesting aspects of crime at the moment, so far from the, increase in professional crime, is the surprising increase in completely motiveless crime, hooliganism, where there can be no suggestion of a desire for money and which is obviously a reaction against the refusal of some recognition which those concerned expect and which they have to find in a society of their own making.
I seek to emphasise this aspect of the problem because when war is declared against crime there is always a danger that the' public will see a situation, similar to that which existed in the war, when there is an overwhelming crisis to which we have to bend all our energies irrespective of other considerations. It rather invites from the public a cry for a sovereign remedy which will be a complete answer to the problem and which will lend itself to a crash programme giving rise to opportunities for conspicuous, demonstrable and vigorous activity and which may be put into effect oblivious of any other considerations. That is the danger of over-emphasising the magnitude of the problem.
When one proceeds one step further and announces a campaign against a particular aspect of crime, one is reminded of the campaigns which we have seen from time to time in the Soviet Union—against drunkenness, hooliganism and economic crimes—all of which have reduced for a period the crime in question, although possibly at some cost to individual justice. If there is a suggestion that the court, the prosecution, the police and the jury ought all to find themselves on the same side in a cam-

paign, one is bound to ask who is on the other side, and the only answer can be the accused.
That gives rise to four rather disturbing factors. The first is that the jury itself is rather given to understand from what it has read in the Press that it is letting its side down if it does not bring in a conviction. The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) suggested that for the hard core of professional criminals, by which I took him to mean criminals with a number of previous convictions, some of the traditional safeguards should be removed before the finding of guilty. I find that a little disturbing. It is just criminals with a number of convictions who are most in need of protection from being wrongfully arrested in perfectly good faith and wrongfully convicted.
Secondly, after a criminal has been convicted, if, foremost in the mind of the court, is the suggestion that here is a guinea pig who can be used as a deterrent against future crime, then one reaches the stage where the rights, even of a criminal, tend to fade into the background. Outlawry, the declaration that a criminal loses all his legal rights, has, fortunately, been abolished long ago in this country. But one is reminded of the comment by George Bernard Shaw, that if one is concerned solely with deterrence, then the deterrent effect of hanging or imprisoning the wrong person is as great as the deterrent effect of hanging or imprisoning the right one.
One unhappy result of this kind of sentencing policy which sometimes comes to the surface is that public sympathy is driven on to the wrong side of the fence. There were members of the public who were horrified at the activities of the train robbers, and who felt their sympathies towards them warm a little when they recognised that the sentences imposed, as the hon. Member for Runcorn pointed out, meant, virtually, that these men had very little hope of being restored, at some future time, to take their place in society.
It is most unfortunate if the sentencing policy is to drive public sympathy on to the side of the criminal.

Mr. Carlisle: The point that I was making was that the public have to expect that people who behave in that way


are likely to get sentences of that kind but that one should expect them to be dealt with on a basis of reform. I was certainly not suggesting that the public should have sympathy with the train robbers, I was saying the opposite, that the public should accept the sentences.

Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman and myself are perhaps at one, as neither is anxious that the public should have sympathy with the train robbers. We perhaps differ on the possibilities of reform if men are incarcerated for that length of time.
I should like to refer to the very interesting speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). Most of us would be anxious to see the period in prison used for constructive purposes of the kind which he has in mind. But the other day some of us were privileged to visit a prison and to discuss this matter with the governor. He told us that his hope was that some of the prisoners would be taught useful trades and that they would have inculcated habits of applying themselves to work, so that when they left prison they would be ready to take part in the economic life of the country. We asked whether this was happening and he said that men were working for two or three hours every morning.
We asked whether it would not be better if they worked for rather longer periods during the day and he said that, of course, it would be better, but the difficulty was that there were not enough staff in the prison service. When my right hon. Friend is considering the matter of recruitment to the police he might find it profitable to consider recruitment to the prison service, which at the moment is desperately under-staffed.
Thirdly, there is some danger, when the public is invited to consider itself engaged in a war against the criminal, that it might think of itself at engaged in a war against the deviant. Young men are condemned because they allow their hair to grow long and they wear narrow trousers. It would be a thousand pities if the mere deviant was not merely labelled a criminal, but was on some occasions actively pushed into becoming one. We certainly do not want to create a society which is entirely uniform and priggish.
Fourthly, it is vitally important that we should actively enlist the sympathy and co-operation of the public in whatever activities are thought to be right in fighting crime. When I ventured to raise the question of the use of the jury system at Question Time the other day I received the weighty and very welcome assistance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Maryle-bone. I hope that he will not consider that that assistance was any the less welcome if I say that one of the matters that we clearly ought to consider, if it is suggested that we should curtail the jury system, is the fact that this is one way in which the public can be invited to participate actively in the administration of law and to see for itself, what is going on.
It would be a great pity if we gave the impression that no one is entitled to pass judgment on what is a proven offence except members of the legal profession. One can draw a number of conclusions; one can suggest that in inquiries into the workings of the legal profession or into the workings of the police, representation of the public would be actively welcomed. I am suggesting that, while we are undoubtedly facing a very real and serious problem, we should invite the public to take the view not merely that we are asking for its co-operation in fighting the criminal, but that we have not entirely overlooked the importance of justice.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: I am very glad that the usual channels have managed to squeeze in a little time for a debate on crime, because I believe that the very first duty of Government is to keep law and order and to protect the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects. I do not think that that duty has been fulfilled very well since the war. But the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has certainly shown that he is fully seized of the seriousness of the position and I have enough faith in him to believe that he will have the determination and ability to do something effective about it.
The statistics speak for themselves and I will not repeat them here. One cannot open a newspaper without reading of a murder or attempted murder—and it should be remembered that attempted


murder may ruin a life. The truth is that the lawless and the thugs are gradually coming to realise, and to take advantage of, the fact that they can fight their way out of a tight corner with knife or gun without risking their own lives. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary reports
… a growing determination to commit crime, regardless of consequences.
One consequence which they no longer have to regard is death. No one will ever persuade me that that is not the most powerful of all deterrents. Of course, this can only be a matter of personal judgment, because no one will ever be able to prove how many potential murderers have been deterred by the prospect of the death penalty. But for myself I repeat what I said when both Houses of Parliament decided to repeal the death penalty in all circumstances, namely, that if I had voted for that Bill I should consider myself an accessory before the fact of every future robbery with violence.
What are the reasons for this ever-rising tide of crime? I would like to discuss for a few moments what has been described as disorganised crime or hooliganism. My right hon. Friends have dealt with what they have called big, organised crime. I am quite sure that the first and foremost reason for the increase in disorganised crime can be summed up in the phrase "lack of discipline".
Too many parents and too many teachers have abdicated the duty of bringing up children in the fear of the Lord, or if non-Christians—and they are a majority of the nation—prefer it, have abdicated the duty of teaching their children to choose correctly between right and wrong. Above all, the best kind of discipline, self-discipline, seems to have departed from us. We are no longer a responsible society.
Our former colleague, Charles Curran, whose defeat at the last election I very much regret, in an article in the Sunday Telegraph of 31st July put it so well that I would like to quote him. He said:
A large part of our population … are moral nihilists. They have abandoned both religious belief and the behaviour patterns based on it. We have turned into a secular society; but we lack a secular ethic.

Very few people seem to care.
Pandering to the rotten core are, first, the pornographic literature which floods all our bookstalls; many films and plays; and much television; all calculated to excite lust and violence in people who no longer believe in, and are no longer taught, self-control; and which threaten to turn our cities into Chicagos of the 1920s. We in this House should recognise that there are active influences at work today which lose no opportunity on screen, on stage and in print deliberately to denigrate and deride such old-fashioned concepts as duty, honesty and loyalty; and I believe that these writers and critics bear much responsibility for the crime which so disfigures our national life.
Other modern phenomena tending to increase crime have already been mentioned—drugs and gambling. I am glad to hear that the Government are at long last proposing to take some more effective steps to control the supply of drugs and so to protect people from themselves. Gambling is a different kettle of fish. To me, in itself, it is neither a sin nor a crime. It is nothing to me that fools lose fortunes every night in this "swinging" city of ours. Gambling is objectionable only because, in its excesses, it is leading to the kind of crimes which result from the protection racket—a kind from which we have mercifully been free hitherto—and from creditors who cannot recover gambling debts in the courts taking the law into their own hands.
The dilemma of Governments faced with such a thing as gambling was well expressed by one of our predecessors in this House, John Milton, who, in his Areopagitica, said:
Lastly, who shall forbid and separate all idle resort, all evil company? These things will be and must be. But how they shall be least hurtful, least enticing, herein consists the grave and governing wisdom of a State.
Therefore, while I am very glad to hear from the Home Secretary that he is proposing to deal with the 500 or so commercial gaming clubs, I wonder whether the law does not need amending; because it seems to me that either the law is being broken or that it should be changed.


The Willink Commission on gambling, in 1951, believed that
no sensible man could but wish that gambling played a less prominent part in the life of our Nation
but that in moderation it was harmless. Thus, the 1959 Bill, in the words of its author, Lord Butler,
was framed with the object of keeping gambling within reasonable bounds … of discouraging or preventing excess.
What went wrong? There can be few better examples of the best-laid schemes "ganging agley" and of the best intentions misfiring than the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, the object of which was characteristically summarised by my noble Friend, Lord Margadale, at the time, as being
to have things above board and not under the counter.
The intention of everyone on both sides of the House who supported that Bill was
to do nothing which would permit the introduction into this country of that kind of commercially organised gambling which takes place in certain continental countries.
Section 9 of the Act swept away all the existing law regarding gambling, including the ancient offence of habitually keeping or using a place for the purpose of playing games in which there was an element of chance for money. Instead, Section 10 sought to prohibit this type of gambling in which the organiser has a direct financial interest in the stake by imposing three conditions for their legality. These rules, Mr. Butler thought and said at the time, should be suitable for the conduct of genuine private gaming. But, alas, they have not prevented the very abuses which all Members then expressly wanted to guard against, although all Members then realised that it would prove difficult to find language which would clearly distinguish between proprietors' clubs and promoters' clubs masquerading as proprietors' clubs.
I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is investigating ways of taking more of the ill-gotten gains of these clubs, but it would be much better if the Home Secretary were so to amend the law that there was not much to take. If that cannot be done any more successfully than was attempted in 1960, per-

haps we should bring back the old law against habitually keeping or using a place for the purpose of gaming. But we cannot make people good by Act of Parliament. These measures might help by removing temptation.
I wish to say a few words on the forces whose duty it is to enforce the law—the bench and the police. It seems to be becoming generally agreed that the Judges' Rules are too heavily weighted in favour of the accused and that too many people whom everybody knows to be guilty escape punishment on technicalities. When two such legal luminaries as Lords Shawcross and Dilhorne agree that certain changes should be made, the Home Secretary and others concerned will, no doubt, take notice, and act. I was very glad to hear what the Home Secretary said today on one limited aspect of this matter. I would reinforce the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that the right hon. Gentleman should publish a White Paper well in advance of his proposed Bill.
The best way in which the bench can help in this national predicament is to impose sentences which will deter. It was a most unusual and refreshing experience from those benches opposite to hear the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) thinking more of the victim than of the criminal. I should like to take this opportunity most respectfully to congratulate the Recorder of Birmingham, Mr. Michael Argyle, whose warning, we read, has caused burglary offences and vandalism to fall spectacularly. I would that all magistrates would take a leaf out of Mr. Argyle's book, but it is not for us in this House to presume to interfere with the judiciary. All that we can do is to ensure that the maximum sentences are such as will deter and are not derisory.
Lastly, the police. The first thing to notice is that at this of all periods in our rough island story the police are well under an already inadequate establishment. I find this inexcusable, and I believe that no Government should tolerate such a state of affairs for a minute longer than it takes to set it right. It it is pay, then more pay must be forthcoming. Over a year ago, my right hon. Friend


the Member for Ashford wrote in the Daily Telegraph:
Of course another huge increase will break Mr. George Brown's heart. It is acceptable only to a society which gets its priorities right, and comprehends that only the thinnest of blue lines stands between this country and a breakdown in civilised standards.
Incidentally, increased expenditure on the Youth Service is another way in which we might risk breaking the First Secretary's heart.
But it is more than a matter of pay and conditions, and I warmly congratulate the Home Secretary on having boldly grasped the nettle of amalgamation. Seventeen separate county borough forces in Lancashire alone typifies the folly which has been allowed to continue too long. Amalgamation will, amongst other things, accelerate promotion, and, if any of the top people are not up to their job, no handshake could be too golden for them.
Next, is our attenuated police force being used to the best advantage? The answer can only be, "No." I draw the Home Secretary's attention to these words in a leader in The Times last week commenting on the latest report of the Estimates Committee:
It is absurd when crime increases steadily every year that so much of the time of the police should be taken up … in acting as Ushers and escorts in the Courts, or dealing with traffic offences of a type which could perfectly well be handled by traffic wardens … Too much of the policeman's day is taken up with paperwork required by the Courts, by the Ministry of Transport, and other worthy bodies. Parliament cannot exempt itself from blame in this.
How often has that lament been heard? How seldom, if ever, has anything been done about it? Why cannot there be a separate force of older men within the force—as, for example, the Royal Army Pay Corps—to do all these very necessary tasks; and other separate force of traffic police, as suggested time and again in the House by myself and others; so as to leave the others free to do their main job of preventing crime and detecting and apprehending criminals?
Far too much young and highly qualified manpower is wasted on doing petty jobs which have to be done but which could well be done by the over-fifties. And that does not improve the police "image" with the public.
Finally, we all have a part to play in this battle. Public co-operation is not encouraged by the now famous booklet on "How to Complain". Far too much time is already taken up by far too many senior officers in investigating complaints over half of which I am informed are frivolous. I suggest that a senior police officer should appear regularly on television in order to tell people how they can help the police to prevent crime. But however it is done we must, between us, win this war.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: The debate has been a very constructive one. We have had a challenging introductory speech by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and a similarly constructive speech from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I want to make four brief points. First, the word "crime" is in itself emotive. It creates in people's minds—including my mind—a prejudiced and jaundiced view about what should be a matter of cold analysis, in which we should dismiss as far as possible the sentiments that we naturally have about this anti-social activity.
The one thing that has struck me about this debate is that all the lawyers in the House seem to conclude, from their special knowledge, that there are serious weaknesses both in the law as it is written and, apparently, as it is carried out. That confirms my many years of reflection that I would not necessarily go to a member of the legal profession if I wanted the right answer to this problem.
I am concerned primarily with the victim and the redress of the wrong that has been done to him, and, secondly, with the offender and his reform. I have said that the word "crime" is emotive. It is also glamorous. I subscribe to what was said by an hon. Member opposite. Too many of our national newspapers and too many of our broadcasting programmes—excluding news features—view crime in its most glamorous, sexual and salacious form. The local Press is a glorious exception to this. Its reporting is usually exemplary; it gives the facts without dressing them up. But in the cinema and in the theatre, and in so many other spheres, the glamorousness of crime is pinpointed.
In a prosperous society an evilly disposed minority is apt to receive too much example and too much encouragement from libertarians—by which I mean the people in the theatre and television world, and those who belong to the world of communications. None of us wants to be repressive, but it is plain that, taken collectively, the material which is distributed through the Press, and put into our homes by the radio and television, has a deleterious effect, especially in the formative years of the young person.
That is not to deny that as many as nine out of 10, or even 97 out of 100 boys and girls, are not influenced by their parents as they should be. But I should like them all to be so influenced. But if it is the fact that, adding up all this environmental influence of an affluent society, 3 per cent., 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. of our boys and girls are driven to the wrong conclusions, against a background of weak family life, it is clear that we, as a society, should examine the question whether it is right for us to continue to allow the unadulterated distribution of this kind of material.
The House is rightly entitled to say, "This is a restriction of liberty," but whereas, long before 1930, every divorce case in this country was reported in the Press down to the most sallacious detail, in the 1930s the House decided that that kind of reporting should cease. As a result, divorce cases, to the extent that they are worth reporting, are reported in only the most general details in the Press. All the old stuff has gone. Against that background the Home Secretary should consider whether it is possible, in these days, to adopt a negative attitude, or to say that the reporting of certain matters in the Press, or on the B.B.C. or I.T.V., is undesirable.
A White Paper on "The Child, The Family, and The Young Offender" was published in August, 1965. As chairman of a juvenile court for some time I am aware that everything that such a court says or does is controversial. My work in a juvenile court was the most challenging work I have ever done. I never had any doubts about decisions taken in the senior courts, but in the minds of those who sat in juvenile courts I found that there was constantly a challenge as to whether they were doing the right thing.

I suggest that there has been a gradual improvement, although it is hardly noticeable and in my opinion it stems from better education and from the act of the 1963 Act, which gave child care officers and local authorities considerably more power.
I am convinced that the House, sooner or later—and the sooner the better—will have to make its mind up clearly and without doubt that the young men who make up our police forces should confine their duties solely to dealing with crime in the general sense and that we should have a separate force of highway police. The sooner this is done the better. The longer we avoid taking a decision—and this applies not least to the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport; this problem is largely unresolved because of the duplication of departmental interests—the more the police will be in disrepute, and the longer they will be hampered in their reach for real crime.
I want to enlist the Home Secretary's assistance in respect of the consequences of the actions of juvenile courts. As many of us know, they have the later oversight of many of the boys and girls who appear before them. In 1964, no fewer than 5,219 young offenders were on after-care charge of juvenile courts after their cases had been heard. Of that number, 4,419 received their first employment. Anyone who has dealt with special cases arising out of the juvenile courts knows that the first employment is the essential factor in getting a young person back into ordinary society.
Of the 4,419 young persons that I have mentioned only 12 boys and two girls were taken into the Armed Forces. In reply to a Question I asked him on 6th July of this year my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said:
We do not know how many of the total of 4,419 applied to join the Services.
I know that 12 boys and two girls were accepted.
All applications are considered on their merits …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1966; Vol. 731, c. 76.]
Those words sting, because boys and girls who have been through the courts and who are looking for a job for the first time do not have many merits to commend them.
Perhaps Ministers will tell me that they have to be very careful about barrack


room property which is left about all over the place. They may say that they must take great care to ensure that such property is not the subject of further larceny. But if I tell the House that in addition to the 14 who went into the Forces 373 went into distributive work and 591 went into personal service, am I to gather that those forms of service are less liable to make a boy or girl commit further crime?
I hope that the Home Secretary will help me in this matter. Out of experience of cases dealt with by child care officers, in my area, I would ask that before a boy or girl is turned down by the recruiting officer the report of the appropriate local officer should be obtained. I do not ask that the boy or girl should be recruited, necessarily, but that the report should be borne in mind.
I turn now to police modernisation and amalgamations. I come from South-East Lancashire. I would go further than the Home Secretary, and say that there should be a national police force for some of the particularly vicious crimes. These should be dealt with by that force immediately that they are suspected to fall into a serious category. I recognise the Home Secretary's driving initiative to get amalgamations, but purely because of the omission of this House in 1964, and possibly a Home Secretary who did not look far enough ahead, we are left with an inability to amalgamate except for police areas and not parts of those areas.
I can quote vividly the experience in my own area. Within 12 miles of Manchester Town Hall there is an urban district—Lancashire County Council—between my own Borough of Oldham. Between Oldham and Rochdale is an urban district, between Rochdale and Manchester an urban district, between Bury and Manchester an urban district and between Bury and Bolton an urban district. Therefore, all round Manchester, with the exception of Salford and Stockport, there is a natural area of communications and people's habits and of industry which is similar in many respects.
Salford and Stockport are contiguous to Manchester, and he is, therefore, able to recommend that they should be one police authority, though I now understand that Stockport is trying to opt out

and go to Cheshire, which I can understand. My right hon. Friend says that he is unable, because of the speed which is required, to make any alteration. What is he doing? He is going to connive at bringing back not to one county borough, but to a number an old county organisation which is irrelevant to South-East Lancashire.
If the priorities of the Gracious Speech are to be varied by the Prime Minister, during the autumn and the winter we shall be legislating for an Ombudsman, legislation which is not yet wanted in the country. It is certainly a third- or fourth-year job for a Labour Government. But in this case, the Home Secretary and the Minister of Transport should not plead lack of Parliamentary time on problems like this and problems of making our transport efficient. I concede the short-term decision of the Home Secretary, but how long will it take a Royal Commission to deal with the curious, contradictory pattern of Lancashire?
The essential, efficient modernisation of the police there points to one thing, that as this area is roughly 10 to 12 miles from Manchester Town Hall and 3 or 4 million people live there, I suggest that, in his rush to efficiency, he should consider whether this important part could be the subject of a mere amendment, merely to say that parts of a police area should be dealt with by amalgamation. I know that he is afraid of all the other arguments across the rest of Britain. He is, therefore, afraid of history and of modernising in an efficient way the police force in that part of Lancashire. I hope that, even at this late stage, he will change his mind and bring in the legislation which is wanted.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: I correctly expected that there would be a wealth of speeches from lawyers and experts in this debate. I do not suggest that lawyers are not experts. I realised that, by the time I made my speech, a wealth of knowledge and experience would have been contributed. This has been a valuable and worthwhile debate.
This will save me referring to many of the things which have already been said, probably better than I could say them. I had hoped to speak for a few minutes


just to put the more pedestrian point of view—that which is shared by a large majority of my constituents and, I believe, a large majority of the constituents of other hon. Members. To this extent, I should say that I join the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) who gave us very shortly the feeling of so many of the public.
Public concern with the present situation is rising. People are concerned not so much with the quantity of crime as with its type. The horrible and vicious attacks on innocent people by thugs and gangs of thugs have been mentioned. These concern the public very much. I am encouraged to hear the debate. In the 11 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have never been so encouraged to notice the tendency towards recognising what the public feel about the crime rate. In the past, I have been very despondent to hear speeches concerned mainly with statistics and the treatment of criminals. These are probably very necessary. However, we should face the fact that we have to get down to the job of reducing crime, especially horrible crimes.
We have heard so much about the treatment of criminals and the psychological approach. I hope that I am rightly interpreting the debate when I say that it follows the popular demand about the way in which criminals ought to be treated. Far too little has been heard of the severe penalties which criminals are entitled to suffer. There is no need for me to go into the exceptional cases. Some people ought to have more consideration because of their special needs, but, as the hon. Member for Rugby rightly said, the public expect and have the right to expect that the deterrent should be used. The theories and experiments of the past have gone a little too far. The public now want to see just and fair penalties imposed. Some members of the public think that it has been wrongly assumed that the criminal does not always know what he is doing, or is not of sound mind, or not responsible for his actions. Very often—perhaps in the majority of cases—the criminals know what they are doing. They carefully calculate exactly what sort of crime they will commit and its effect on the people who have to suffer.
My impression, as a non-expert, is that, in the past, this House has been far removed from the area of crime. We have the lawyers, who are in touch with the criminals, but they seem to recognise, as did my right hon. and learned Friend, that what matters is what the public feel about these things.
Surely it is a matter for the public and the police in the urban areas where crime runs so high and where they have had the experience of and suffered from crime, and not perhaps the do-gooders who, if I understand it correctly, have had their day in this field to a large extent. Statistically, and in the eyes of public opinion, the do-gooders are not as popular as they were. At times they have partly been right in their interpretation of the problem, but only partly right, and they should admit that often they have been wrong.
For many years we heard that poverty and unemployment were the causes of much crime and that if we could remove extreme poverty the crime figures would fall. In fact, this was wrong. The figures did not fall. The more we get away from poverty and unemployment the higher the crime figures seem to go. This tells me that these people were wrong, and they could still be wrong in their solution to the problem.
The House today has shown that we can reduce crime. One of the answers to the problem is the use of the deterrent. Reference has been made to Mr. Argyle, the Birmingham Recorder. The reduction in the crime rate in Birmingham following what he said is no less than 40 per cent. We have seen nothing like this for many years, and it can be attributed only to what he said. Those who were influenced most by what he said are those who were going to commit a crime. What he said was more interesting to them than to anybody else, because they were directly affected by what he was likely to do to them when they arrived in court.
We ought also to notice the discouragement of the police, school teachers, others in authority and the general public by the soft attitudes towards the criminal. The police have been much discouraged, and this has been a great factor. Most hon. Members ought to admit that we do not represent the public's wishes about corporal and capital punishment. Without


stating my own view, I believe that we ought to recognise what the public want us to do. The hon. Member for Rugby was probably right when he said that we ought to look more closely at the question of corporal punishment. I believe that there are a few isolated cases in which corporal punishment might be very useful as a deterrent. It would be only a few cases. I do not accept the figures quoted many times by experts and statisticians that corporal punishment has been proved useless as a deterrent, for I believe that corporal punishment may be of some use. It has been admitted even by do-gooders and experts that corporal punishment can be useful if it is administered at the time of the crime, and this proves that there may be some use in the deterrent force of corporal punishment.
In these days of the so-called enlightened electorate we ought to consider whether we should have a referendum. I believe that we should. Like others, I have come to this decision hesitantly. I believe that a referendum may not be a good instrument, but in this case I cannot see how the wishes of the public, many of whom have been injured by criminals, can be properly interpreted and how we can know for certain what they want without a referendum. It may be that by a majority the general public would opt for corporal punishment, and it may be that they would not. Certainly we ought to know exactly what the public wish us to do. We are their representatives and their only hope, and if we do not know for certain what they want, we cannot put it into practice. Up to the present hon. Members have refused to face the fact that perhaps the public want a return to capital and corporal punishment.

8.6 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and glad that a little extra time has been allowed. It is four hours since the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) rose to open the debate. It seems a long four hours, but it has been an interesting debate and there have been many excellent contributions from both sides of the House.
Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the undermanning of the police force and several hon. Members have spoken about the amalgamation of police forces. I wonder whether many of them have had much experience of the proposals. I have, because in my constituency we have undergone, as a result of the local government reorganisation, the amalgamation of several police forces in the County Borough of Wolverhampton. We are facing a very serious situation. I hope that the strictures of the Recorder of Birmingham will not cause some of the bad lads of Birmingham to take a little trip to Wolverhampton, because we do not want them there.
We are 800 short of establishment in the police force in the county borough, only a little above half strength. This is a highly industrialised area, and we need the strongest possible force under these urban conditions. When amalgamation was in the offing many officers for various reasons opted to join the Staffordshire County Force. Mechanisation is being introduced very quickly, and many civilians are being employed to relieve police officers of some of the more tedious and footling jobs which they have to do. Nevertheless, there is a very serious shortage. We have a large number of officers who are working on the majority of their rest days, and this is not a good thing. They are, of course, being paid overtime. But a police officer should have his proper time off.
We cannot be complacent in the face of such a very serious situation. We have a curious situation—I do not know whether any other police force in the country has it—in which we have 100 police houses empty in the new county borough, ready for new recruits to the police force, but with no recruits to put into them. In the present shortage, experienced not only in the Midlands but in all large towns and cities, it is essential to find ways of relieving the police of some of the less important jobs. Many hon. Members have mentioned traffic control, and I will not go into that in more detail. Certainly traffic wardens could relieve the police on much of the routine work which they now do, and this could provide some sort of career prospect and promotion for the traffic warden force.
We might get better recruits, men and women, as traffic wardens.
I hope to cover some new ground in the debate, since hon. Members have not spoken about possible sources of recruitment. There seems to be prejudice among some chief constables against cadets. Some of them seem to feel that there should not be more than 40 per cent. recruited to their police forces, although others take a more realistic view and welcome cadets as a source of recruitment. It is extraordinary to think that some forces have no cadets at all. Some have two or three. I understand that Bath has three, although the Wolverhampton Police Force has 100 cadets, so I am not at the moment castigating my local force. This is a sphere of recruitment which needs serious consideration by police forces throughout the country.
All the evidence seems to show that, although cadets are being considered, when the education officers of the police visit schools they almost always visit the sixth forms of boys' schools. Some police forces have a small number of girl cadets, but I suggest that there is profitable ground for recruitment from both boys and girls in sixth forms in our grammar, comprehensive and secondary modern schools. I mention this because one hon. Member commented on the low educational standard of many recruits to the police. I suggest, therefore, that boys and girls in sixth forms could provide useful additions to police forces.
Similarly, in the higher echelons of the force, there is little evidence to show that women are considered for promotion or for courses leading to promotion. Is this because there are too few women in the police force or because too many chief constables are prejudiced against women, or a mixture of both? Chief constables recommend suitable candidates for courses at, for example, Bramshill, but from looking at the evidence of the Estimates Sub-Committee which considered the police and reported recently, it appears that almost all candidates at these courses are men. I make my protest about this.
The Senior Staff Course at Bramshill is designed to prepare officers for the most senior posts; chief constables, inspectors and so on. There are about

500 applicants for a course which can accommodate 24 students and I should like to know how many women officers have been recommended for this and similar courses. There is also the course for sergeants, to prepare them for appointment to the rank of inspector. The Commandant of the College, giving evidence before the Sub-Committee, stated:
We do change our syllabus and our methods.
Officers for that course go to the College in batches of 70 and, mirabile dictu, there are sometimes two or three women out of that total of 70. The third course, designed for outstanding young officers, was started in 1962. There are about 60 on each course and I believe that when the third course was held there was one woman student—for the very first time. I wonder how many women have taken that course since then?
It is clear that the whole question of recruitment and training of women in the police force needs investigating. There is considerable scope for building up the numbers of recruits if proper career opportunities were available and I believe that many graduates, men and women, would enter the police force if the career prospects were satisfactory and if the whole question of training were examined again.
When the senior men at present in the Metropolitan Police Force, who were brought into the Force under the Trenchard scheme immediately before the war, retire, a new kind of officer will obviously be promoted to those jobs. However, we need a more representative selection of men and women. By ridding the force of some of the rather footling duties which it must now carry out and by recruiting more cadets, men and women—and by recruiting more women at all levels—we will find, if we can persuade the general population to work with the police and with lay, professional and social workers, that a good deal could be done to combat crime, particularly among young people.
I am afraid that we now accept that crime and law-breaking is on the increase, notably among young people. In our large cities and towns young people are in very great danger and the figures for drug taking show this clearly enough; a rise of from none at all only four or five


years ago to 145 teenage drug addicts last year. That is a large number of people under 20 years of age who are addicts to heroin. In many cities the police work closely with psychologists and social workers, in visiting the premises where these drugs are sold and in following up the case of families involved, but I regret to say that some police forces could not care less about this urgent problem, either because they are not really interested, because they do not think it a very serious problem or because they do not have enough men and women to spare for this work.
Scotland Yard has only 16 officers on its Dangerous Drugs Squad. Four spend their time checking on the dangerous drugs registers in chemists' shops, which leaves only 12 men to work in the field. I suggest that the drugs squads in every large city and town are in need of reinforcement. We know, too, that the drive to get hold of drugs of all kinds leads to thefts and burglaries at the places where they are stored and manufactured. If the police had more men to allocate for the protection of these premises, this grave problem would be on the way to some sort of solution, and many hon. Members are pressing for the police to have increased power to enter and inspect clubs, coffee bars, dance halls, pubs and other places where drugs are sold.
The police are well aware that a good deal of crime is committed under the influence of drugs or in order to get them, and that a good deal of prostitution is based on or is at the fringe of this serious problem. It is accepted that many young people are driven to prostitution to get hold of drugs once they have experimented with drugs.
I believe that large sections of the community, particularly young people, could be persuaded to co-operate with the police to help other young people of the kind I have described and who are gravely in need of help. One of the members of the Brain Committee, Mr. Lawrence Abel, suggested that youth squads should be set up to work among young people. They could be used to augment police cadets, men and women, and could work among young people who are obviously in need of help and who are congregating in the sort of places which most of us would not wish young people to attend.
The recruitment of young people for this rôle has been carried out in Richmond by the Richmond Christian Fellowship. Their young members toured clubs, coffee bars and other places where young people gather and discovered Richmond's drug problem before the adult population of Richmond was prepared to admit that such a problem existed there. Great scope exists for this kind of work throughout the country. However, allied with it must be the possibilities of helping young people once they have been rescued, either by the voluntary forces about which I have spoken, by police cadets or by police women. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will be closely concerned with this problem in future. There are large numbers of young people throughout the country who could be helped in this way.
Attached to the centres I hope we shall see set up, there must be, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) suggested, some kind of rehabilitation follow-up for all these young people who get involved in criminal offences. It is not enough just to treat them in hospital for a short length of time; once discharged, they must be looked after by trained social workers. If necessary, they must be given training for jobs, otherwise they will drift back into the kind of criminal atmosphere and criminal circle from which we are trying so hard to rescue them.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) lent a vigorous and heartfelt touch to our debate. She has kept to the constructive and non-controversial tone that has animated it. I hope that I carry her with me in regretting that crime has now become our largest—indeed, our only—growth industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) pointed out, figures produced last week show that the amount involved in indictable offences has risen during the past year to £42 million, an increase of £8 million or of 23·5 per cent. I do not believe that there is another industry that can match that record.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)


talked, in his notable introduction to this debate, about productivity. We cannot say by how much the thieves have increased their productivity in the past year because we do not know by how much recruitment into that industry has increased, but it is fair to say that if our export industries had increased their productivity in similar proportion to that of our thieves we would not be in our present economic mess.
One of the difficulties facing us in dealing with this problem is that the police have to fight on two fronts—they have to fight organised crime and they have to deal with the motor car. I am not one of those who think that the police are wasting their time in dealing with traffic offences. It so happens that in a few days' time we shall have the 70th anniversary of the country's first motor car fatality. It occurred in my constituency on 17th August, 1896, when an unfortunate Mrs. Driscoll was knocked down at the Crystal Palace and died of her injuries.
Home Office researches have discovered that, since that time, 10,273 people have been murdered in England and Wales, whereas the number killed on the roads during that period exceeds 300,000. It is, therefore, fair to say that during the last 70 years one's chance of being killed by a motor car has been about 25 times greater than that of being murdered.
The figures are diverging. In 1965, 153 people were murdered in England and Wales, and the number killed on the roads was 7,952. In other words, the chance of being knocked down and killed in car crashes was 60 times as great as that of being murdered. I therefore do not think it right to say, as some do, that the police waste their time when they deal with traffic offences, and that they should turn all their attention away from the roads to dealing with crime.
The Estimates Committee have suggested that the rôle of traffic wardens should be expanded, and that they should have some sort of career structure. The Committee is probably right in that recommendation, but we should recognise that its implementation means that a separate traffic police force will inevitably grow—not a thing which I would altogether regret.
Like probably every other hon. Member, I welcome the amalgamations of police forces that have been announced by the Home Secretary, but it is important to remember that, by themselves, amalgamations do no good whatsoever; they are valuable only in so far as they provide a springboard for future reform. The main benefit that can come from them is an improved and more sharply defined career structure, because without that we shall never be able to attract into our police forces the requisite numbers of men with sufficiently high academic qualifications to deal with the frightening amount of fraud on which my right hon. and learned Friend dwelt.
Meanwhile, as the Home Secretary himself has admitted, amalgamations wrench the connection between police forces and local government. The new police authorities that have been set up to supervise the amalgamated police forces are, on the whole, not credible bodies. It seems that we are now waiting for the Royal Commission on Local Government to try to think of a suitable way in which a connection can be kept between local government and these new, larger police forces. I agree that it is desirable to keep some connection, but I think it even more important that the connection with this House should be strengthened as well.
During recent weeks the Government have not treated the House of Commons very well. We have seen the affair of the Prices and Incomes Bill. We have seen the sudden appearance of the Ombudsman. Regrettably, we are now told that quite soon Parliamentary control over Post Office affairs will be sharply reduced. I should like to see a move in the opposite direction with regard to the police. The accountability of the Home Secretary should be increased. This would obviously increase the power of this House. We would be able to question the Home Secretary more and to have more debates on this important subject.
I do not believe that by having more debates and increasing the accountability of the Home Secretary either the police or our liberties would in any way suffer.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I should like to take up a point made in


opening the debate by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). That is the sudden emergence in this country of the highly organised criminal syndicate activity. In my opinion, we do not have to look very far to see why this type of activity has suddenly arisen. We do not have to look further than to the passing of that very unhappy legislation the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. I do not think that any single act of legislation has resulted in so substantial an amount of increased criminal activity as that piece of unfortunate legislation.
One of the reasons why gaming clubs have attracted the criminal element to them has been the very reason which the right hon. and learned Member stated in his excellent opening spech. That is because where there is a large amount of money there will always be a criminal element willing to exploit it. It is one of the ironies of the Act that it was the original intention that it should ensure that there was no financial exploitation of gaming. Not only have we had a financial exploitation of gaming on an enormous scale, but we have also had the emergence of the criminal exploitation of gaming.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) challenged someone on this side when he said that crime was the biggest growth industry in the country. I believe he said that he could not think of a bigger one, but I can think of a bigger one, the gambling industry. One of the first steps I should like the Home Secretary to take in any new legislation is a thorough overhaul of the gambling laws. They are hypocritical, and when a law is hypocritical it is a bad law. It is absurb that we should be allowed to stake any amount of money we like—one can stake £20,000 if one wishes—yet the club proprietor or the bookmaker is not enabled, because of our hypocritical laws, to sue for his money back.
I am not suggesting that we should make gaming losses enforceable by law. That might be too drastic a step, but it seems absurd that, on one hand, we should allow and positively encourage people to gamble any sum they wish and, on the other, allow a situation to arise whereby the only method a club proprietor can use to get his money back

is a strong-arm method and its ancillary the protection racket. That is one of the most unpleasant aspects which have arisen under our gambling laws.
A subject which has been discussed at some length and to which I give what humble support I can is the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that in the new Criminal Justice Bill he is to introduce majority verdicts by juries. We have always said that our jury system is the finest in the world, and I believe that it is, but that does not mean that we must not adapt our jury system to meet the needs and requirements of dealing with the highly organised criminal. The organised criminal does not cease to improve his techniques and it seems to me that in this day and age the techniques of justice should also be improved.
It is obvious—one has only to read the papers; one does not need to be a statistician or sociologist to know—that one of the new great crimes of the past few years has been the systematic nobbling and intimidation of jurors. I am quite sure that one of the methods that will make crime less attractive is the knowledge that the organised criminal will not be able to escape from justice once he gets into the hands of the police. It is regrettable that although the police frequently are able to catch the right man, due to the enormous power of the criminal machine the right man is able to escape justice. I give my wholehearted support to the introduction of this much-needed piece of legislation.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the introduction of an experiment in the police system in my constituency. Is is so rare that my constituency is mentioned by such an illustrious figure that I feel that I should comment upon it. My right hon. Friend referred to the introduction of the modernised village "bobby" idea. This means that one policeman is responsible for patrolling a district and that the population know who he is and so can trust him and report any complaints to him. While it is too early to say exactly how effective this method has been in combating crime, I know from the Chief Constable of Accrington that it has resulted in considerably better co-operation between the public and the police. I


suggest that this type of co-operation and confidence between the police and the public is far more likely to result in decreasing crime than a return to the illiberal methods which have been advocated by many hon. Members today.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharples: This has been a most important and useful debate initiated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I do not want to introduce a controversial note, but it is a little unfortunate that the Home Secretary, having made his speech over three hours ago, left the Chamber almost directly and has returned for about only two minutes since that time.
The background to the debate was given clearly by my right hon. and learned Friend. We face today a record number of 1,133,882 indictable offences known to the police in 1965. The Home Secretary appeared to take some satisfaction from what he called a flattening out of the curve—if I took down his words correctly. This is not, however, borne out by the remarks of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary who says, referring to the figures which I have given:
These figures have reached such serious proportions that little satisfaction can be gained from the fact that as against increases of 9·1 per cent. in 1963 and 9 per cent. in 1964, the figure for 1965 is 6·2 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) also gave figures taken from the Security Gazette of amounts which have been stolen, and I think the figures which he gave can be described as startling. He told us of property to the value of £42 million stolen in 1965. Of that amount, I understand that £8½ million was recovered, which leaves a minimum figure, taking the figures from the insurance companies alone, in the hands of criminals in this country of £33,600,000. There is no doubt, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, that professional crime in these days is big business.
Of course, there are other criminal methods of gaining money, apart from directly stealing it. There are the frauds, the so-called "long" companies which have been flourishing in recent months.

There are the bogus insurance companies. There is the protection racket which thrives on the fringes of crime, on the gambling clubs and those who are able to be blackmailed into subscribing to this form of protection, and all the other things that go with it.
The other side of these figures, however, is probably almost as revealing. Of the total number of indictable offences, 34 per cent. relate to the threat to property or money to the value of less than £5. In 1965, there were nearly 180,000 cases of larceny from unattended vehicles. I believe that a vast proportion of these cases could have been prevented by the public—that means everyone of us has a share of the guilt—if simple precautions had been taken. I believe it is up to everyone to co-operate with the police in the prevention of crimes of this kind.
The real significance of the 1965 figures, however, is the growth in the rate of crimes coupled with violence. Crimes of violence against the person are now running at a rate of well over 25,000 a year. Crimes of robbery were up 22 per cent. in 1965. These and other figures combined with the increasing use of weapons, including firearms which have been referred to by many of my hon. Friends, indicate the growth of organised professional crime which is determined to stop at nothing whatsoever.
I think it used to be said that the professional criminal would not normally use weapons or violence—indeed, that he abhorred these things. But I think the situation has been changing very much for the worse. One only has to look again at the remarks of the Chief Inspector of Constabulary:
It must however be noted that a large proportion of persons arrested or summoned by the police are not first offenders. This, together with the upsurge in crimes of violence in which, with the exception of robberies, the clear-up rate is high, would appear to reflect a growing determination to pursue criminal activities regardless of the consequences. A particularly disquieting feature of current crime is the readiness to resort to violence, frequently with the aid of weapons, both in the commission of theft and to settle personal grievances.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) spoke a great deal about the activities of the professional


criminal. If one wants to look further into that, one need only look at the evidence which was given in South Africa at the trial of Bradbury. For obvious reasons, I do not want to go into too great detail about that case, but anyone who reads the South African Press reports of the trial will receive something of a shock. Allegations of organised fraud, murder, bribery, secret courts and torture and even, in one case, of a person being nailed to the floor through his kneecaps at one of those secret trials were reported in the Rand Daily Mail on April 28th.
These stories, and what came out at this trial in particular, make the works of Ian Fleming seem tame by comparison. In 1960, Lord Devlin said that in this country there was comparatively little organised crime. He said that the vast majority of criminals who came into the dock were a nuisance rather than a danger to the State. While the second part of what Lord Devlin said may have been true then, I do not think that anyone would subscribe to the first part of that quotation at the present time.
Many of those who have taken part in the debate have described a growth in the rate of organised crime which today leaves us in a situation which would do credit, or discredit, to Chicago in the 1920s. Not only is this, and the publicity which it naturally receives, a scandal in itself, but it is an encouragement to others to believe that there is an easy road to success and affluence.
The Home Secretary referred to the encouraging trend amongst juveniles, but against that there is the very high proportion of crime committed today by those in the 17 to 21 age group. Last year, there was a 13 per cent. rise in the number of persons in that age group found guilty of indictable offences.
For those who seek the higher echelons of criminal life and their fruits, perhaps the lessons should be drawn from the case of James White, who had £120,000 from the train robbery. One can read the story of how he was blackmailed and terrorised by other criminals who sought to get the money from him. He lived the life of a frightened animal, until eventually he had the relief of being rounded up and sentenced to what he well deserved. He even made a mess of trying to sell his story to the Press.
I wish that we had had longer for this debate so that we could have enlarged upon the very useful contributions made by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) and other hon. Members on both sides about the treatment of offenders. I hope that we shall have a further opportunity in the fairly near future after the recess to debate the whole of this subject, which warrants a debate in itself. The House should be given an early opportunity to know the Government's intentions particularly in relation to the White Paper on the juvenile offender. I take it that we shall have an indication of the Government's intentions also with regard to the adult offender when the Criminal Justice Bill is published. That in itself is a subject for a debate. I say no more about the juvenile offender at this point except to re-echo a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) about the burden which implementation of the recommendations in the White Paper as they stand at present will put upon the probation service. The right hon. Gentleman will have to think about it very carefully indeed.
On the treatment of offenders generally, I endorse what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend about taking away from people who have committed crimes, particularly crimes of violence, the fruits of their crime. I draw to the attention of the Home Secretary and the House the proposals put forward by the Law Society in the memorandum which it submitted to the Royal Commission on the Penal System with regard to the almost automatic bankruptcy of persons sentenced for the commission of certain crimes. One of our biggest problems, when such large sums are involved, is in passing adequate sentences to prevent people who have committed major crimes from eventually emerging from prison to enjoy the fruits of what they have taken. Those proposals deserve serious consideration, and I hope that we shall hear the Government's views on them when the hon. and learned Gentleman winds up the debate.
Though one appreciates, perhaps, the reasons which led them to do it, I am certain that one of the biggest mistakes which this Government have made was the winding-up of the Royal Commission. It was the only forum we were likely to


have in which these major matters of the revision of the whole penal system could be discussed and the evidence brought into the open.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Royal Commission wound itself up. Half the members said they would not go on.

Mr. Buck: Under half.

Mr. Sharples: I think that it was fewer than half who said it; but it was a decision of the present Government that the Royal Commission should be wound up——

Mr. Roy Jenkins: No. I must correct the hon. Gentleman again. It was a decision which I would not have dreamed of taking and the Government would not have dreamed of taking had not half the members of the Royal Commission said that they would not go on. What solution would the hon. Gentleman have found in those circumstances?

Mr. Sharples: My understanding is that the chairman and other members were perfectly willing to continue. It would have been quite possible to reappoint other members in place of those who wished to resign, and I can only repeat——

Mr. S. C. Silkin: It is only fair to the Government that I should say that I consider that my right hon. Friend had no alternative once matters had reached the stage they did. It is true that half the Royal Commission refused to go on. Originally six did, but when those six said that they would not carry on, another two followed, and that made half the Commission. They were mainly the academic members, and it would have been extremely difficult—I quite agree with my right hon. Friend—to replace those eight as things turned out.

Mr. Sharples: I do not want to pursue this, but I can only say that, whatever were the difficulties, a great opportunity has been lost. It is probably the only opportunity that we shall have this century to settle these questions as broadly as possible.
I turn to the other side of the problem—the question of the police. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about police amalgamations. We are fortunate

in having in time for this debate not only the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary and the Metropolitan Chief Commissioner, but also the excellent Report of the Estimates Committee, which deserves a debate of its own.
When one comes down to it, two main problems emerge with regard to the police. The first is that the police in England and Wales, the area covered by the Inspector's Report, are 15,000 men and women short of establishment. This shortage is concentrated in the areas where adequate policing is probably of the greatest importance. I believe that the majority of the problems of the police arise directly from this shortage. The excessive hours, the undermanning, the split shifts and the frequent weekend work—all these things tend towards wastage and premature retirement.
Mechanisation and scientific aids can help in many ways, but I have no doubt that the main deterrent, particularly to the non-professional criminal, is the policeman on the beat backed up, as far as possible, by modern aids. Statistics can show the number of crimes known to the police and those which have been cleared up, but they cannot show the number of crimes which would have been committed if an ordinary policeman on his beat had not been round the area at the time. I do not believe there is any substitute for the regular policeman who knows his area and the people living in it. The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that he did not hold out very much hope of solving the problem of shortage of police manpower in the reasonably near future. I very much doubt whether either this House or the public will think this is good enough.
The second factor, which is coupled with the overall shortage of manpower in the police force, is the amount of time spent by the police on extraneous duties. This is covered very fully indeed by the Report of the Estimates Committee. Speaking personally, I am very glad that the Estimates Committee has not come down in favour of separate traffic police, for reasons which many of us understand. But many of its recommendations, particularly for saving the time of the police, the greater use of traffic wardens and civilian clerical assistants and arrangements for court duties, need very careful and urgent examination.
I hope that we shall also hear from the Government what steps are being taken to recruit additional traffic wardens, which is one of the recommendations of the Estimates Committee for relieving the police of fairly routine duties. I understand—I take the figure from the Inspector's Report—that there are at present only 425 traffic wardens in the Metropolitan Police District. We ought to be told how many are likely to be needed when the new parking meter schemes in London come into operation. I understand that the number required will be very greatly in excess of that available at present.
I have spoken of the shortage of regular police. The House should be told what the Government's attitude is now towards police pay. My understanding—and this is referred to in the Police Federation Newsletter I received this morning—is that, earlier this year the Home Secretary intimated to the officers of the Federation, who had gone to see him because the morale of the service was so low, that this year's pay talks would not be conducted on the narrow basis of merely maintaining parity with the index of wage rates, as had been the case previously. The Newsletter goes on:
When the views of the Home Secretary were made known to the service, they raised morale and persuaded many young men not to resign but to soldier on with the prospect of a fair deal on pay in September.
I understand that this was the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman. The Under-Secretary of State should be quite clear as to the Government's attitude to police pay, including the attitude—and one does not blame the Home Secretary, who has been overtaken by events—to the rise which was due on 1st September. The House should also be told frankly what the position is concerning the pay of probation officers, who are in a similar position to that of the police.
Finally, I want to say something about the administration of justice itself. Unlike many hon. Members who have spoken, I speak only as a layman. We can all understand the frustrations of the police when a man they know to be guilty gets off, and there have been far too many reports in recent months of witnesses being tampered with and juries failing

to convict for reasons which seem to the layman far from clear but which leave certain ugly suspicions behind. There is no doubt that many police officers feel that the scales are heavily loaded in favour of the criminal.
I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about this so far as it goes. These are extremely important matters which we shall need time to consider. A Bill is to be brought in shortly after the recess and it would help not only us but those outside who have to study these problems if a White Paper were issued in advance of the Bill so that these matters could be studied adequately. I also welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about Lord Morris's Committee on juries. I hope that, equally, the Committee's recommendations will be published in a White Paper along with the Government's decisions on them.
In welcoming what the right hon. Gentleman said, I want to enter a personal reservation. As I have said, I recognise the frustration of the police in many of these cases. The police naturally bring a man to court only because they believe him to be guilty, but we should recognise the danger of drifting into any system under which there is a presumption of guilt merely because a person is charged by the police. It is still, and I hope it always will be, the basis of British justice that a person—and that means any person—is innocent until proved guilty. I want criminals to be convicted, but equally I want it to be quite clear and virtually impossible for a man to be sent to prison for a crime he did not commit.
All these are matters which we should have the opportunity to examine carefully with the aid of a White Paper, and we should examine them on a broad basis and not solely upon evidence which has been produced to us lately as the result of particular incidents. The Home Secretary has a difficult task. We wish him well, but we shall judge him by the results which he manages to produce.

9.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): Almost without exception, every speech has been constructive. I am glad that what disagreements there have been have


been as much across the Floor as between the two sides of the House. Certainly, this subject is more suitable for this kind of debate than the censure Motion which was moved on the previous occasion. The only Members who may have reservations about the debate are those who have their names down to introduce the 30 or so other subjects to be discussed tonight, but that is not a consideration which appeals to those hon. Members now present.
However, I shall be brief and I shall concentrate mainly on matters concerning the police and the activities of criminals. We on this side of the House are grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) for having raised this subject, because, quite apart from anything else, there would be value in the debate if it only drew attention to the seriousness of the situation. I do not think that anybody underestimates the seriousness of the position. However, I shall have to neglect some of the valuable contributions about the treatment of offenders, and I am thinking in particular of that made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), whose remarks were appreciated by all who heard them.
A wide area has been covered from the first speech onwards, but I can be fairly brief in answering, because many of the issues cannot permit any final answer at this moment. Many will be dealt with by subsequent legislation. There will be legislation on gaming and clubs and there will be a Criminal Justice Bill to deal with matters like committal proceedings and other issues which have been raised, and the best time for a fuller discussion of those matters will be on consideration of the Bill.
We shall carefully consider the request for a White Paper. Some of the matters covered by the Criminal Justice Bill have already been the subject of a White Paper and some have already been announced, for example, the decision on majority verdicts. It was extremely encouraging to find virtually universal support for this proposal. We hope to publish the Bill before the end of the year and we do not wish to delay its introduction in any way. It will be a major Bill and

will need long consideration in Committee.

Mr. Deedes: What concerns us is not how soon the Bill arrives, but the interval between its publication and Second Reading. That is why we want a White Paper.

Mr. Taverne: I realise that there are considerations in favour of publishing a White Paper and they will be taken into account.
The second reason why I cannot deal fully with many of the reforms in procedure and evidence which have been suggested by various hon. Members is that many are matters which will be examined by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, for example, some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) about the silence of the accused and about putting in a previous record in certain circumstances, and I am told that in my absence the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) raised the issue of the Judges' Rules.
Undoubtedly, the climate has changed. Many of us accept that the balance is now loaded too much in favour of the criminal, but in the present mood created by the crime wave there is a certain danger—and I am very much in sympathy in this with my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer)—and I am a little worried about the readiness with which a number of speakers have airily dismissed as unnecessary certain safeguards for the accused. This is not the right kind of climate in which to consider a number of these very important issues concerning the liberty of the individual. It may be that we have to modify the Judges' Rules, that we have to scrap them. It may be that we have to reconsider the question of the silence of the accused.
But a few years ago any of these suggestions was regarded as heresy and these Rules were regarded as being essential safeguards for the protection of the liberty of the individual. Let us not swing too suddenly and too far the other way. It is eminently right that these kinds of questions should be very carefully considered by an eminent body of lawyers, a very strong Committee, such as the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and that we should make up our minds,


not in an atmosphere of panic but as a result of very careful consideration of its report.
A third reason why I cannot give a final answer to many of the questions now raised is that they refer to police organisation, matters of recruiting and manpower which are now being considered very carefully by the working groups set up by my right hon. Friend. These will be reporting before the end of the year and it would be wrong at this stage for me to anticipate the conclusions of these committees. I am the Chairman of the Steering Committee, which is co-ordinating the work of these three working parties, on manpower, on equipment and on operational efficiency and management and I give the House the assurance that their inquiries are every bit as thorough as was intended when my right hon. Friend established these Committees.
Every single suggestion made in this House during the course of the debate is being considered by the Committees. This applies to the question of civilianisation, to the recruitment of women, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), to the extension of duties of traffic wardens and to the extremely valuable suggestions to which I found myself very sympathetically inclined, of recruitment of sixth formers, mentioned by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). It is no exaggeration to say that the work being done by these working parties is the most searching inquiry into the methods and organisation of the police that has ever been undertaken.
I should, perhaps, refer briefly to some individual points. When the hon. Member for Colchester talked about the position of the Bramshill scholars at universities, he was quite right in saying that the position is not satisfactory, but in a way he painted the picture blacker than it is. The present position is that at the start of the autumn there will be 26 students at university. In the next year, other universities will be brought in and there will then be 15 to 20 students going every year, which means that at any one time there will be 50 to 60 police officers who will be students at universities. The position is better than he thought it was, although I do not think that any of us can feel smug and com-

placent about this or imagine that it is satisfactory.

Mr. Buck: I am obliged for what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I was quoting from last year's intake. I have not got it wrong. I have just quoted the figures which seem very small indeed.

Mr. Taverne: The position has been very considerably improved. I want to refer briefly to two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East about women police officers. I can assure her that there is no discrimination against women. Women have been chosen for the senior course and the special course at Bramshill. Both are selected by open competition, not by appointment. If the hon. Lady would like detailed figures I can give them to her in writing.
There is a first-rate career for young women and there is plenty of scope for opportunity. While I am dealing with the points she made I can also mention something in connection with the Wolverhampton force, to which she referred. It is now part of the West Midlands force. It is true that it has great manpower difficulties, although these have been partly aggravated by a review of the establishment and an increase in the approved cover; but this a good example of the way in which amalgamation is working out, because the Chief Constable of the new force told the Select Committee than with the amalgamations, they could now look forward to all sorts of equipment that could not be afforded before amalgamation.
The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) asked for details about the fight against organised criminals. One can, to some extent, exaggerate the degree of organisation in crime. There is sometimes talk about "master minds" which is totally unjustified. Glamorisa-tion of crime in this way is sometimes found—the spurious aura of glamour which envelopes some criminal activities. But it is obviously true that much crime, and an increasing amount of crime, is organised. I do not think—and the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate this—that it would be in the interests of the police counter-measures to reveal in too great detail what is being done.
Regional crime squads are certainly making a major contribution in this field,


as the right hon. Gentleman agreed. They are still in the experimental stage. Undoubtedly, there will be improvements which, in time, can be brought about. They provide a mobility, an ability to move across police areas which was not present before. They provide a concentration on criminals as opposed to particular crimes and the length of time over which the activities of suspected criminals can be watched which was not possible before. They also provide that concentration on intelligence to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly attached so much importance.
When it comes to some of the detailed organised crimes—for example, the stories from South Africa, to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) referred—again, as he knows, certain action has been taken by the Metropolitan Police, and no more can be said about this at present.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to certain proposals of the Law Society relating to making criminals bankrupt. I do not wish now to talk at length about the question of treatment of offenders. As the hon. Gentleman realises, this is a very complicated matter. Bankruptcy is hardly the most simple branch of the law. It must be viewed as part of the wider problem of restitution by criminals in which all sorts of questions of priority arise. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) referred to the need for the prisoner to maintain his family, a sense of dependence being an important factor in keeping the family together. We must determine where priorities in repayments should lie. These are all matters which must be considered together. For that reason, this may well be a question referred to the new Advisory Council on penal matters.
I have been asked a question about pay. The answer is very simple, although not necessarily one which will be popular: the "freeze" applies to the police, as it applies to everybody.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that as soon as the sixth months' "freeze" is up he and his right hon. Friend will place the question of police pay at the very top of their order of priorities?

Mr. Taverne: I think that I can go further than that. Certainly, during the course of the first six months—I believe that the Police Federation has been informed of this—there is no reason why the negotiations should not be started and be carried on.
Lastly, I wish to say something about a factor which perhaps has not received in this debate the attention which it deserved—relations between the public and the police. A major factor in the morale of the police is undoubtedly the public's attitude. My hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton referred to this matter very briefly. There are many policemen who take a rather sombre view about the lack of public support. In some ways, I believe that they are too pessimistic. There are a number of signs that relations between the public and the police are improving.
For example, the number of letters of appreciation written by members of the public is increasing. It is worth noting that last year the number of letters of appreciation was well in advance of the number of complaints. There were more than 9,000 complaints last year, of which 90 per cent. were unfounded, as was revealed in a Parliamentary Answer. But there were nearly 15,000 letters spontaneously written by members of the public thanking the police for the good work that they had done.
Secondly, there is some evidence of more physical support by more members of the public for the actions of the police. I can give one example from the Metropolitan Police. Since the "Have A Go" campaign was launched by the Deputy Commissioner it has become customary for a letter of thanks to be written by the Assistant Commissioner to members of the public who have assisted the police. So far, the number of letters written to members of the public thanking them for their assistance this year is as large as the total number of letters written last year—and the number written in July was the highest yet.
But although relations may be improving there is no doubt that far too many members of the public regard the war against crime as something which affects others, but in which they are neutral. But crime is something in respect of which no member of the public can regard himself as neutral. It is


a question not merely of the material damage caused, or the injury caused, but of the moral and psychological damage to society.
I also sometimes doubt whether the public realise the risks to which the police expose themselves in the course of their work, or the number of acts of bravery performed by policemen. Again, let me give an example. As everyone knows, the George Medal is awarded only for acts of very great gallantry, yet already this year seven George Medals have been awarded to the police.
What is also quite clear is that the public have not yet recognised the very great part which they themselves can play in the prevention of crime. Certain crimes will always go undetected. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect that every petty larceny can be detected, however strong and efficient a police force may be. Every burglary cannot be traced. But a tremendous opportunity can be taken by the public, since so many of these petty crimes are committed by opportunist criminals, who can be discouraged by proper precautions. The public can play by far the biggest part in this.
Representatives of commerce and industry have been invited by the Home Office to join police and Home Office representatives in a standing committee on crime prevention. This has had an enthusiastic response. There is also far closer association with insurance companies than ever before. These contacts with the outside public provide a great stimulus for new ideas, quite apart from the improvement they can bring to the situation.

Mr. Gurden: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the possibility of a no-claims bonus burglary cover?

Mr. Taverne: This can be discussed by the various bodies concerned. But the biggest contribution would be for the public to become more crime-conscious. Relations between the public and the police lie at the heart of the problem of crime, whatever new equipment there may be, and whatever new methods of policing are adopted. The police are entitled to the support of the public just as they are entitled to the support of the Government and Parliament, and one of the best

things that have come out of the debate has been the ample demonstration it has afforded of the faith and support which Parliament as a whole has and can give to the police.

HOSPITALS, BRIGHTON AND HEALTH SERVICES (REPORT)

9.24 p.m.

Sir William Teeling: In raising the question of Brighton hospitals, I hope that I am not being too localised. The area with which I am concerned contains four constituencies and has a population of about 250,000 people. Its problems are very much the same as those which are developing all over the country, especially concerning doctors, consultants, the general medical profession and hospitals, as against the regional boards. That is the first reason why I want to raise the matter.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) is, unfortunately, unable to be here this evening. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Hobden) has told me that he is supporting me, but is not well enough to be here either, so it remains for my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) and myself to try to put the case for the Brighton hospitals.
There is also the fact that in Leicester and many other districts to which our consultants have been to talk to doctors they are equally worried about the way things are developing in respect of the regional boards.
There is a second reason, which I never imagined when this problem first arose about a year ago would occur. That is the present financial crisis. I never thought that I would have to stand up against a Labour Minister of Health at this time of crisis and beg him to spend much less money and, at the same time, give greater benefits. Instead of spending £20 million on dealing with a ramshackle old hospital and one or two others, I am asking him to spend £6 million on some bright new ideas, which, I would have thought, interested him. I should have thought that he would follow instead of oppose me on this problem. It is £20 million against £6 million, at a time when everybody is asking us to economise at all costs. He refuses to


economise and says that the main reason is that it was all decided long ago.
Admittedly, a scheme was definitely decided and scrapped in 1964. The Government could scrap it in 1964, and just because they have now rushed things two or three months ahead they say that they cannot possibly scrap it again. Of course they can. Not only that: they have pretty well paid all the architects already. There are very few amounts of money which they could not pay off and still save about £13 million or £14 million. That £14 million could easily go towards building other hospitals which are so badly needed in other parts of the country. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would try to explain why this is not happening and cannot hapepn.
The third reason for bringing up this question is that I want it to go on record that a group of youngish doctors—in their forties and early fifties—have thought out, in a selfless way, how the people of Brighton and Hove can suffer less and have better equipment in their hospitals and can be generally looked after. They have gone abroad to Scandinavia, the United States and other places to get the most modern ideas.
What they have come up against is a regional board of people in their early, middle and late sixties and in their early seventies.
I can appreciate the Minister wondering why he should worry about this, when he has so much else to do. He may feel that this board should deal with it. When I first came into the House as a young man, I was told that if I ever had any doubts about what I should do I should always do what the Whips suggested. I am not suggesting that the Minister is doing only what the Whips suggest, but I do say that he is taking what he thinks is the easiest way out, because he does not want to quarrel with the elderly gentlemen who have been looking after the regional board for years, but who really know precious little about Brighton and Hove. I will come back to the chairman. He doubtless knows quite a lot about Brighton and Hove, but the others do not.
Another reason for bringing this matter up is to discuss the undemocratic side of the present system. The right

hon. Gentleman gave me an Answer in the House today in which he said, "No" when I suggested that we might do something to bring in people who were locally connected, locally elected and locally knowledgeable on medical matters, not only in Brighton and Hove but all over the country. Would he tell us in some detail why these things cannot be done?
These are the main reasons for raising the question, and I will now point out the problems. A little lecture to the House on the geography of Brighton and Hove will do no harm. It is a long area with the Downs behind it. It is very thickly populated and is becoming fast much more thickly populated. We had good hospitals in the 1880s, 1890s and the early twentieth century, very suitable for the people of those days, but since then these hospitals have become extremely out of date, and I defy the Minister to point out much that has been done in any of them to make them modern.
It was decided about 1959 that we should have a new accident centre in the Sussex County Hospital and a little improvement in one or two of the other hospitals. It soon appeared to most of us that this would be a stop-gap arrangement, like plastering up a house which was falling down to keep it going for another few years. It seemed that once we had plastered up the accident centre we should be told that so much money had been spent there that we could not possibly open a new central hospital.
During the last three or four years we have developed a new university in Stanmer Park, Sussex University, and there is a possibility of having there a central hospital in an area which is easily accessible both to Hove and to the other end of Brighton. Why cannot we have the hospital there? It is this feeling which inspired our doctors to try to have the hospital in that centre. We feel that if too much money is spent on accident centres at the Sussex County Hospital at one end, or in Hove at the other, we shall not be given enough money to build a hospital in the middle of the area. That is why we are anxious, before too much money is spent on these accident centres, to see whether we can change our minds and do something for the central hospital with all the modern aids which have been offered by these doctor friends of mine.
I do not pretend to be a doctor, or to be intensely knowledgeable of hospital buildings, but, having heard these people talk and met others in the town who support them, I feel that they are right and that I should bring before the House the point of view which almost everyone in Brighton and Hove regards as right. May I quote from a letter which these people sent to the British Medical Journal on 11th June this year:
The consultants' plan was overruled by the South Eastern Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board in favour of three district hospitals, two of which were to be built on the cramped site of the Royal Sussex County Hospital and the Brighton General Hospital by a process of serial demolition and rebuilding. In fact, to date the only detailed plans to be drawn up are based upon a redevelopment of the Royal Sussex County Hospital, where there is the new accident centre and casualty department and work such as boilerhouses which are necessary for subsequent phases, for which only outline plans have been developed.
They say:
When in April, 1965, the Regional Hospital Board decided to postpone for two years the building of the accident centre the consultants immediately and virtually unanimously decided to ask the Regional Hospital Board for a complete reappraisal of the general hospital plans. They felt strongly"—
and how right they were—
that in 1965 this plan was even more inadequate and out of date than it had been six years earlier.
Some people do not seem to realise that in America, Scandinavia and elsewhere, in six or seven years, they can make brilliant inventions for hospital development and plans which some of the members of the South Eastern Regional Board simply could not imagine. The older members never go abroad. They take their holidays at places like Bournemouth. These doctors, on the other hand, go abroad, to places like America, and study, and when they return they bring back ideas which are of great moment. However, when they put their ideas to the regional hospital board the board refuses to discuss them, as happened with this memorandum.
The doctors got together the consultants of the whole area who agreed, by 53 to 3, to support the memorandum. During my discussions with the Minister of Health I was told that I had no backing for this case. Does he consider that 53 to 3 does not represent the back-

ing of the consultants of the area? Having gone that far, they took expert advice from the leading hospital architects and quantity surveyors and a fresh memorandum was drawn up. This was considered by the regional hospital board on 14th April at Guy's Hospital. The representatives of the board heard what we had to say and reserved judgment. However, eventually they turned us down, but without giving any reason whatever. I trust that tonight the Minister will give that reason and say why the board would not support us.
The right hon. Gentleman may not know that these quantity surveyors and architects were the exact same ones who were working on his scheme. They decided that they could do theirs for £6 million, as against £20 million. Coupled with that, it should be remembered that one site of the Royal Sussex Hospital is proposed to be built at the far end, the eastern end, of Brighton, which will mean that one will have to go right through Brighton to get to it. It will mean that many people, particularly those coming from Hove, will have to travel through the heart of the town, and in October, through the midst of the Labour Party conference, to get to the hospital. It might even be a Labour M.P. who is taken ill and who may not be able to get to hospital. Sad, but true. It will all be due to the Minister of Health.
What is the reason for these consultants not wishing to agree to the regional hospital board's scheme? It should be remembered, first, that at the Sussex County Hospital there is a steep gradient leading to this area and that the cramped space means that each phase will result in a monolithic skyscraper being built at a cost of £3 million, and that will happen with each phase. Using nodular construction techniques, a similar space could be adapted for the building of units costing about £250,000 each. I am, therefore, not trying to spend money, but to get more the money being spent, and, at the same time, to save money. Rebuilding on this site would mean medical staff and patients being very inconvenienced. This is particularly important from the point of view of patients, because bulldozers and other demolition activities will be going on, with all the noise and dust that is involved when large-scale building operations are in progress; and this will last for nearly 15 years.
A hospital at the eastern extremity of Brighton would be badly placed. It is the main accident area. It will have to serve Hove, Portslade and, in time, Southwick and Shoreham. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this area will develop vastly in the coming years, with great increases of population. It will become the Greater Brighton area and for some years to come the whole of mid-Sussex will be served by this hospital.
The right hon. Gentleman must also take into account the fact that the eastern road runs past the hospital and is to be developed as a four carriageway ring road. This is in the Ministry of Transport's plans. This will cause traffic congestion and other difficulties because of traffic approaching Paston Place and coming from subsidiary roads from the sea front. Traffic noise is also a serious embarrassment to patients, as I believe happened in Bristol. There is no space for car parking. Allowing one car per visitor, we can expect 800 cars in this area, their drivers looking for parking space. There is no possibility of such accommodation. Inadequate space is available for the nurses' home and staff. The central supply department will be sited at Bevendean, at another hospital three miles away. The eye hospital and other departments will be linked to the main heating system, with a tunnel under the road. All this, when we have perfectly good space at Stanmer Park, when one could build at a quarter of the price.
The project is to be divided into five phases. No time limit is given for completion, and the most optimistic estimate is that it will take at least 15 to 20 years from commencement. That is the prospect. We are told that we cannot build any more quickly, but they can build more quickly in the United States and in Scandinavia. Why cannot we build more quickly a really possible and necessary hospital?
The other day, the Minister told me that I was quite wrong in suggesting that the £20 million and £6 million schemes were comparable. I have, therefore, gone into the matter in considerable detail and I find that the two sums are the values of the final plans of the respective schemes. Both cover the complete development for hospital services in this

group. They are therefore strictly comparable——

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson) indicated dissent.

Sir W. Teeling: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am only asking to deliver my goods for £6 million and he is asking to deliver his goods for £20 million, and they are the same sized goods at the end. I think that they will be the same goods, but the trouble is that neither he nor I will be here in 20 years' time——

Mr. K. Robinson: Mr. K. Robinson indicated dissent.

Sir W. Teeling: The right hon. Gentleman may not be Minister of Health then. He could be but, if he is, the outlook for all of us is that we shall have no changeover or new developments, and we will still have our doctors saying, "We told you so". The same people drew up the costings for the Ministry as advised my group.
The first phase of the Royal Sussex County Hospital rebuilding will cost approximately £2 million. It will, in effect, provide only a glorified casualty department, with two theatres, some radiology facilities and 77 beds. But, for the same sum, the consultant's plan would provide a viable hospital with 120 beds, four operating theatres, full pathological and radiological support, an accidentcentre, a casualty department and the facilities to deal with all emergencies in the group—medical, surgical and orthopaedic—as well as accident and trauma, which is all that the Sussex Hospital could deal with.
That means £4 million left over for a scheme which would complete our "new hospital", bringing it up to 480 beds, plus four extra theatres, diagnostic unit, O.P.s and further supporting facilities, as well as administrative offices. In addition, it would include the alteration of existing hospitals to fulfil their rôle under our plan. Surely the Ministry is being stupid or at least pigheaded in trying to think that this must happen in the way it has worked out since 1959.
And for the new group organisation at Stanmer Park would not cost anything to build on. Consultants would always be available when needed; and a second opinion would always be available—which it is not when we have three


scattered hospitals. There will be less travelling, less time wasted and less fatigue—anyone going from one hospital to another in Brighton about lunchtime on an ordinary day of the week will realise how tired doctors can get travelling from one hospital to another.
Decisions on management in both inpatients' and out-patients' departments could be made within three days at most, and within 24 hours on average, with all the most modern facilities instantly available on the premises instead of being diffused. Operating lists would be better organised and streamlined, thus cutting down fatigue and improving results. There would be better facilities and throughput, making for reduced waiting lists. Out-patient diagnosis would be a matter of days instead of weeks, as now. Diagnosis would be more certain because of increased scientific aids, cutting out guesswork. We would have closer supervision of in-patients and junior staffs. This must lead to better patient care, better use of facilities, better training of staff, and thus higher standards. All these measures should save time and energy which can be used to maintain high standards of patient care. This is particularly difficult to achieve in present circumstances in the Brighton group of hospitals, and would be almost equally difficult under the hospital board's present scheme.
I turn to the question of regional hospital boards. How democratic are they? In one Answer the right hon. Gentleman told me that they are appointed by him on the basis of value or what he is advised they are good at. Naturally, I can look only at my own regional hospital board. We have a chairman of whom I am personally very fond. I like him very much indeed, but we must face the fact that he is 71. He is a very nice old gentleman, a big businessman in the town. When he gets thoroughly upset by everyone heckling him about what is happening, he just says, "How can I answer? After all, I am only a draper." He is a very good draper, but I think he is not much good at these modern medical problems, about which he knows very little.
I doubt whether he ever goes to see hospitals in other parts of the world. I should be very interested to know to which he has been. As he says, he is

only a draper. The real power behind the throne is a doctor who was in practice before the war. He finished practice about 1941 or 1942, over 20 years ago. He is now, they say, a very good administrator. I am perfectly certain that he is, but he has been studying all this for years on his own and he is determined now not to change his mind on anything. He has made up his mind, and that is the end of it. Nothing can be done to budge him. He has complete influence over the chairman. What can we do about it? These two gentlemen are at the moment advising the right hon. Gentleman.
Over the months, indeed over years now, I have been asking the right hon. Gentleman to meet the consultants. He has refused point blank to see them. In many other countries one can walk into a Minister's room and talk to him. They do that in the United States. I admit that in South America one would get shot, but that is another problem. The Minister need not worry about that. I am sure that these consultants are quiet people whom he could talk to, except when he jumps into a car to come to my constituency to make a political speech. The regional board will not see them, either. We do not know what their scheme or plan is, or if it ever reached the Ministry. I am inclined to think that it did not reach the Ministry, and that certainly the last report and scheme did not reach the Minister. I should like to know why.
We have a perfectly good borough council in Brighton. A third of the council is elected every year. It has a health committee which is chosen each year. That committee is largely responsible for all the hospitals in Brighton and everything connected with them, but, although it unanimously supported the consultants against the Minister on this matter, and asked me to leave them to see the Minister, the Minister refused point blank to see them. He said that the reason was that the regional board had already made up its mind. It had made up its mind in 1959, I suppose, long before any of these new inventions which we are talking about came into force. That the local authority, which is elected regularly and frequently, has not the right to approach the Minister on a matter dealing with the health of


the town, is undemocratic and monstrous.
I asked the Minister today why he could not put some people connected with local government and the medical profession on to regional hospital boards, and he said definitely, "No."

Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Member will know that there are on the Brighton and Lewes Management Committee two councillors from East Sussex County Council and two from Brighton Council.

Sir W. Teeling: They are supporting me, but that is not on the regional hospital board.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member must appreciate that a hospital region covers a very large number of local authorities. They cannot all be represented on the regional board, but a number of them are.

Sir W. Teeling: One would have thought that a quarter of a million people could be represented. On the list of our board the Minister has members, including a Member of this House, from somewhere up in Lancashire. I do not see how he fits in. However, there it is.
I beg the Minister, before we finalise this issue, to remember that we are in an economic crisis and that in the years which have gone by he has been telling us that he could not do this, that and the other for Brighton and Hove because of economic crises. The doctors in the area do not, however, believe that this accident centre will really improve the situation so much locally at this time. If they can wait that little longer, they will get something much better and something much more suitable for the country.
I have heard that we are trying to have special hospitals for export, for people to come and study in Reading and elsewhere about the best type of modern hospital which we can produce, which will be useful for the export market and to earn dollars. Why could we not have one here in Sussex, at Stanmer, where Lord Shawcross is willing to help with his university and is prepared to do all he can to support us? Lord Cohen of Brighton, another of the Minister's friends, swears that this is the most neces-

sary and worthwhile thing that we could have.
Why cannot the Minister just for once give way a little and agree to having a board of inquiry or something similar to study the problem and to see exactly why we are spending £20 million instead of £6 million, which, no matter what the Minister says, will not be the best solution?

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the House that there are 28 subjects to be debated during this evening. I hope that hon. Members will co-operate by making speeches of reasonable length.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: You could not have addressed those remarks to me as a rebuke, Mr. Speaker, because I have not yet begun. I should like to start by thanking the Minister for coming to answer this debate tonight. I hope that following what my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) has said and the few facts which I shall give to underline his remarks, the Minister will regard this debate, as Dr. Johnson said of hanging, as something that wonderfully to concentrate the mind, and that in the case which is being presented the right hon. Gentleman will see reasons for a new understanding of the problem and why local opinion is so convinced that he is wrong and that he may, therefore, meet us even at this eleventh hour.
I must join in my hon. Friend's personal tribute to Sir Ivor Julian, chairman of the regional hospital board. It is certainly thought locally that the board's attitude is based on the attitude of the Ministry, and I am certain that the Minister would not in any way want Sir Ivor and the board to carry responsibility for the decision Which is the right hon. Gentleman's own.
I emphasise that although the hospital we propose is to be located in the municipality of Brighton, it would also serve, as the Brighton and Lewes Hospital Management Group serves, Hove as well as Brighton; and it is our view that patients from Hove and, indeed, further to the west—Portslade, and so on—would have a better hospital service under the Stanmer Scheme than under the regional board scheme.
The basis of the scheme is that patients should be segregated into those who are acute and need a high degree of care or diagnosis, and patients requiring an intermediate degree of care. It is clearly better that the acute patients should be treated within one hospital for the group where the resources, expert manpower and expensive equipment can be concentrated, rather than having this segregation in two or three separate hospitals within the group. It is significant that, even last week, owing to shortage of staff in the Royal Sussex County Hospital, the segregation of patients into acute and intermediate has had to be begun. Therefore, why do not we carry this through to its logical conclusion and get under one roof the expensive equipment and the concentration of expert manpower that are required?
I think it is significant that if we did have them under one roof, with the doctors almost perpetually in attendance, the patients' waiting time would be cut down enormously. At present they have to wait for some specialist facility or consultant to come, and 25 per cent. of the time spent by patients in hospitals locally is spent waiting. That is enormously expensive, very wasteful and bad for their morale. Incidentally, 60 per cent. of patients, who need only intermediate care, are in acute beds and that is also wasteful of resources and staff.
I would stress that the Stanmer plan was drawn up by consultants with representatives of every speciality concerned. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman need not fear that if he were to adopt that plan there would be long delays and higgling and haggling about a lot of further changes—the sort of things which, as he knows, enormously delay the carrying through of hospital plans into actual buildings.
I wish to emphasise—when my hon. Friend mentioned this the right hon. Gentleman shook his head—that we cannot understand why he thinks we are not comparing like with like. I want to say why we are comparing like with like. We—my hon. Friend, the consultants and I—are concerned to see hospital provision for the complete care of acute and intermediate patients in the Brighton and Lewes Hospital Group area. The national hospital plan, which is based on

the plan which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) brought out in 1962, envisages, inter alia, three general hospitals which do not exist at all. Two have to be completely rebuilt and one has to be started absolutely from scratch. The cost of carrying out the national hospital plan and the ancillary work—do not let us argue whether it is £18 million or £20 million—is in a ratio of three to one, compared with the complete plan embodying an acute hospital on the Stanmer site which would cost, let us say, £4 million—actually, it is a little less—leaving £2 million for the refurbishing of existing hospitals. Some of the smaller ones in the area could and should be closed.
Not only is the capital cost lower, but the revenue running costs will be less under the Stanmer plan compared with the plan advocated by the regional board and the Minister. Not just a few, perhaps not too intelligent, Members of Parliament but every independent person who has been concerned with this matter, be they doctors, architects, quantity surveyors, men of business and so on—whoever they may be—have all agreed with the case as I have stated it. We are talking about something that does not only have applicability to our area, and that is why it is worth spending a few minutes on this subject. It is important to the nation as a whole. At least half of the population could have hospital provision for a third of the cost which the right hon. Gentleman envisages, and therefore could have it very much quicker.
I do not want to repeat many of the things which my hon. Friend has already mentioned. But I emphasise that for Hove the accessibility of the hospital at Stanmer would be far preferable to the Royal Sussex County, and it must be better to delay a little to get the right answer than to crash through with the Minister's present scheme.
The Minister may say that there may well be some terrible accident and drat the present facilities in Brighton are very poor. I remind him that there is already a small intensive care unit, established during the last seven months, within the Royal Sussex County Hospital, and for an expenditure of only about £5,000


enough could be done to carry us through the extra year or so while we get the right answer.
I also emphasise that the general practitioners, through the British Medical Association, have given their support to the Stanmer scheme, providing as it does for G.P.s to care for their own patients in the intermediate care hospitals. The Brighton Corporation will give the site, all the local papers are in favour of the scheme and I should think that there has never been such an uncontroversial scheme in a locality as the one which the Minister will not adopt and which costs a third of his scheme.
Will the Minister say something about the continued reservation by the Hove Council of a site in the Borough for one of his general hospitals, in view of the acute shortage of development land in the locality?
Surely it is not too late for his to change his mind? In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), he told us this afternoon that his mind was not open. But I hope that, in view of the development of the case that we have been able to make in this debate, he will re-open it. The compensation for the contractor who has been awarded a contract would be tiny compared to the financial benefits to our area and the benefit as an experiment to the whole country.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the Minister will reply to the first two debates together.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: As I listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) and Hove (Mr. Maddan), I was struck by the close connections between the important local subject which they have raised and that which I propose to raise, which primarily concerns the coordination between the various branches of the Health Service and particularly the need for more effective locking in between the various branches than there is at present.
This is a vast subject, but I shall deal with it briefly in view of the large number of debates which are to follow. I am sure that the Minister will agree that,

although attention tends to be concentrated on other aspects of the service, especially on finance and the payment of staff at present, its structure is a question of immense importance, particularly as we are dealing with an organisation which is vast in every sense of the word. We are dealing with expenditure of over £1,200 million a year and with one of the biggest employers in the country, many of whose employees are highly-skilled men and women whose services must be used to the best possible effect.
I have always believed that the spirit of an organisation and the men and women working in it are more important than the structure. One of our national characteristics is a mistrust of over-formal machinery. We tend to say, "Does it work?" rather than, "Does it look tidy?". Many of our institutions, including this House of Commons and Parliament in general, look very odd in theory but they succeed in working in practice.
However, many reports produced since the National Health Service was set up have drawn attention to the weaknesses in the present structure, particularly to the fact that there are, in addition to the Minister of Health, several other Ministers directly involved in various aspects of the health of the community and the fact that within the Health Service itself we have a tripartite structure, the general practitioner and other services run, as it were, off one engine, the hospital service run off another quite separate engine, and the local authority services run off a third engine.
The Coalition White Paper of 1944 proposed that there should be joint authorities for the whole Service, but that idea foundered very largely because the intention then was that these joint authorities should be based on the local authorities and the professions at the time were opposed to it. Then, in 1956, we had the Report of the Guillebaud Committee which suggested no major changes in the structure very largely because the Service was young and the Committee felt that it needed a period of stability to settle down. Nevertheless, even Guillebaud, in those comparatively early years, was unhappy about the division of functions, and the Committee pointed out that this led to many defects


owing to lack of co-ordination within the Service as a whole.
In 1962, we had the Porritt Committee, composed of representatives of the main professional bodies, which was quite clear in its views and criticisms. One of the main conclusions of the Porritt Committee—I quote here from paragraph 608 of its Report—was:
The most vital need is to unify and integrate in the widest sense, all aspects of medicine in order to achieve the highest standard of medical care and to avoid the sense of isolation and frustration to which we have draw attention. Co-ordination and understanding between the profession and the administration is essential. No service can thrive if there is not a genuine partnership between these two vital elements. Our review has convinced us that a major fault in the National Health Service is its present tripartite administration, for this has led to difficulties in co-ordination and co-operation.
That was the main conclusion of the Porritt Committee in 1962, and it drew attention to what it regarded as the chief weaknesses in the structure to which I shall now refer: first, a lack of central co-ordination between the various Ministries involved in aspects of health; second, the tendency for the main medical men to be isolated from one another, the general practitioner, the consultant in the hospital and the medical officer of health; third, the control of funds by different authorities in particular areas; fourth, the tendency for there to be insufficient unified planning and operational research.
The conclusion of the Porritt Committee was that there should be area health boards with executive responsibility for all the health services in their areas, the general practitioner and other services, the hospital service and the local authority services. It suggested that pilot schemes might be tried out in various parts of the country to test this idea.
I believe that there is weight in the criticisms put forward by the Porritt Committee, and by other bodies which I have not mentioned, from both the medical and the administrative points of view. But there is also the point of view of the patient. I give two examples. The first concerns the elderly chronic sick. Every hon. Member knows from his experience and correspondence that one gets demarcation disputes in dealing

with the needs of the elderly chronic sick, in particular between the hospital service and the local authority services. The hospitals, naturally, want to free their beds for acute cases. Local authorities, under very heavy pressure, are reluctant to take on additional burdens, and also, perfectly naturally, they have one eye on the rates. Often it is the family doctor who gets the wrong end of the stick.
The family doctor may have a patient who needs care of some kind. He may go to the hospital, and the hospital often says, "We are sorry, but there are no beds available for anything other than acute cases." He may then turn to the local authority for supporting services in the home or facilities in an old people's home, and very often he gets the same answer there, "We are sorry, but we are absolutely full up and cannot help." But each of these cases requires individaul decision in the light of all the circumstances—whether it is better for the person concerned to go into hospital, to go into an old people's home, or to have supporting services in his own home. I believe that it is much more difficult to get the right answer when separate authorities are involved.
The second case that I want to mention is the maternity services. Here one gets duplication. The mother and her baby may well need the services of the family doctor, the hospital and the local authority services as well within a matter of weeks. There is a real possibility not only of confusion in the mother having to deal with three authorities but also of duplication of effort.
These are, I believe, weighty arguments against the present structure and in favour of the Porritt approach. On the other hand, there are many people knowledgeable in these matters who doubt whether a unified structure is the right answer. They point out that there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that the major upheaval that would be involved in the Porritt approach would be justified by results. They equally point out that local government is now being looked at by a Royal Commission, and that, because of that, any local structure would be very difficult to lay down at this stage when one does not know what local government boundaries will be after the Royal Commission has reported.
They also call attention to—this is a very strong point—the various ad hoc arrangements which exist at present to get a locking in of the three branches of the service. There are the health centres where one often gets a very close link between the family doctor and the local authority services. There are the general practitioner group services, where increasingly one finds a district nurse or the local health visitor, if not actually on the staff, certainly with a room in the centre, and working very closely with the family doctor.
Then there are the various joint appointments which exist—for example, the almoner of a mental hospital who is also the local authority mental welfare officer. They point perfectly rightly to these ad hoc arrangements which are helping, in some places effectively in others not so effectively, to lock in the various branches of the Service.
Perhaps the most important argument against the Porritt approach is that it would mean splitting the local health and welfare services. That, in my view, is the argument which carries the greatest weight, because, more and more, as one examines how the local health and welfare services are functioning, one finds that there is a close link between them, and I believe that to take the health functions away from the local authority and put them under an area health board while leaving the welfare functions with the local authority would be as open to objections as the present arrangement.
I believe that there is weight in this argument against Porritt, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman where he stands on these issues. Where does he think the balance of argument should lie? Is he a Porritt man or is he not? I noted with great interest that he has put a cautious toe in the water on these matters in his annual report, which refers to the informal group which he has set up to help him consider the long-term future development of the services. I understand that he has asked the group to advise him on the interaction of the various services one with another.
As I say, he has put a cautious toe in the water, because he has given the group

no formal terms of reference and I hope that he will be able to tell us a little more about what its functions are. Is the group considering the Porritt approach and the advantages and disadvantages it offers? What has he in mind for this body in trying to assist him in the future developments of the services?
This is, to a very large extent, a long-term issue but there are various aspects of more immediate application. First, what is the right hon. Gentleman's view, irrespective of how he might feel about the whole Porritt approach, of the suggestion of pilot schemes? Does he propose to select certain areas to introduce a pilot scheme on the area health board pattern to see whether it is worthy of greater application? Secondly, what are his views on the proposal that we should have something on the lines of a national health service staff college to train medical and social administrators—people who would graduate with wide knowledge of all branches of the National Health Service and whose primary job would be to assist in the interlocking of the various services and their coordination?
Thirdly, what is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to the proposal put by the Opposition that one of the immediate ways in which one could encourage greater co-ordination would be the appointment of inspectors of health and welfare to help maintain agreed standards of service and to spread all round the country the best practices which exist? The Minister will be more conscious than perhaps anyone else in the House of the tremendous differences of practice in different parts of the country. I wonder whether he has considered this as one way in which we might spread the gospel or the good news of those authorities who are in the van in particular aspects of the Service. He will recognise that this sort of inspectorate operates with success in, for example, the education service, the police service and the fire service.
These are immensely important questions. I was very struck by a letter which I had only today from a junior hospital doctor who spoke of the despondency and resentment in the doctors' mess and who said that there was no doubt that the Health Service was


trembling at its roots for so much destroyed confidence and good will. He was, of course, referring primarily to the problems of the pay freeze, but I cannot help thinking that the problem to which I have drawn attention is equally

important in the solution of the frustrations and difficulties which now exist in the Service. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some indication of his thinking on these matters.

10.22 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this subject and I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) for allowing us to have time to debate it. It is an indictment of the House that we can have the announcement of a ten-year hospital building programme and a White Paper on Health and Welfare community services and yet have no time made available to discuss these vital issues. Unless the country realises that the National Health Service is staggering and suffering acutely, we will wake up in five years' time to discover that the concept of a health service as envisaged by Aneurin Bevan has completely broken. It is time that the country realised that and was prepared, if necessary, to sacrifice to pay for it.
We must now analyse the Service dispassionately and without any belief in party doctrines or dogmas. It came into being as an imaginative and noble gesture, but some of this imagination left the Ministry of Health when Aneurin Bevan left it. The time now is not for a toe in the water, but for the Minister to plunge in—dressed or naked, I do not mind—for we have waited long enough. There comes a time for integration, when cajoling and when persuasion are not enough. When the structure itself is impeding progress and it is now time. The tripartite monster is a diversive element in the Service and is now actively impeding integration.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North, mentioned the geriatric service and old people and also drew attention to the chronically sick. He also rightly mentioned gynaecology and midwifery services. Could anything be more ridiculous than the present situation in which local authorities set up cervical cancer smear tests and clinics for contraceptive advice? The place for these is in the hospitals or the general practitioner service and are all part of an integrated service.
I would also like to draw attention to the mental health service. No one knows more about this subject than the present Minister of Health, who constantly pressed for more expenditure on

mental health. Here again we are finding that the structure is impeding integration. It is difficult to actively pursue a policy of community services and community care when we have this divisive structure. It should be possible for hospital social workers to follow their patient right out to their home. It should be possible for us to have a combined system of notes whereby a general practitioner's notes are integrated with hospital notes.
We are moving into the realms of computers, data processing and if we perpetuate a divisive structure we will not be able to take advantage of the very real advances in scientific and technological knowledge that we are experiencing. I plead with the Minister to make a decision that the policy of integration and unification of the Health Service will be the policy of this Government. Let us have no more committees, no more Royal Commissions. Let him decide to take one area of the country and start a pioneer scheme to show how best to integrate.
It has been suggested that Wales would be a very suitable area. It would fit in with economic areas of the Government and it represents a fairly wide range of industrial and rural life. One could also take Wessex, which has a very progressive regional hospital board. Let it be made clear from the start that we accept in principle the integration of health services.
In general practice, the Minister has already introduced a new contract which is a very real step in the direction of integration, but one will get dissatisfaction in medicine, the welfare services and among the social workers until we accept the new concept of health. This is vital. Health is no longer medicine, operations, cutting out disease, or even tablets. It now embraces social medicine, the environment in which people work, and preventive medicine. These new aspects are still growing and we must encourage them. This can only come from integrating services, from having the general practitioner working in a hospital, having the same contractual arrangements with the regional hospital board as his fellow consultants in the hospital. There should be a feeling that they are his equals.


Hospital social workers operating sometimes in the community should also have the same contractual responsibilities.
Here I would say to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) that I would agree that if one's concept of an integrated health service was one in which the welfare services were excluded, it would be bound to fail. We must include health and social and welfare services. This means that we must look at the whole structure of government. There is a great deal to be said for having one person in the Cabinet as a Minister of Social Security, to speak for the Ministry of Social Security and the Ministry of Health. Meals on wheels and those other aspects of the welfare services must be very closely related to health.
Who else, other than a general practitioner, knows whether an old person is sick; who else can arrange for a suitable diet? Who is in a position to judge where there is great poverty and who should be in daily contact with welfare officers and workers more than the general practitioner? If we had such a concept it would attract young doctors and keep them in this country. It would provide them with a stimulus, and I would urge the House to consider this as a matter of the utmost gravity and as a situation demanding speedy action.
One of the great obstacles often put in the way of any change in the present structure is the argument that we shall be interfering with a democratic process; that we shall have again a system of too much centralisation and not enough local control. This is a fair point, which we must consider, but I suggest that it is time for us to stop mouthing platitudes about democracy and consider how it really works.
For instance, how democratic are the health and welfare services? The regional hospital boards are appointed. I do not complain of that. The hospital management committees are appointed, and so are the executive councils. There is the democratic election of local authorities, but we all know how few people bother to turn up to vote in local government elections, and how local government is in need of radical reform. I reject utterly the thesis that, before it interferes with this situation the House must await the outcome of the report

of the Royal Commission on Local Government.
Health has been waiting since 1948, and it cannot go on waiting. I suggest that it is illogical to expect a local authority commission to report boundaries which are suitable for health. The problem we face is: where do we site our district hospitals? How large are these district hospitals to be? In my constituency we are just about to build a district hospital at Derriford. It would be madness to build a new hospital in Plymouth without planning for it to take its part in the integrated health and welfare services. The siting of hospitals, the building of hospitals, and the facilities offered by them should take account of the eventual integration of the services. That is why a decision in principle must be made now.
The way in which we site our hospitals and spend millions of pounds could well be regretted in 10 years' time. I say that we should grasp the nettle now. Contemplate a Ministry of Social Security with an overlordship over these two great ministries; contemplate regionalism translated into health. Have, on the regional economic councils and boards, health representatives. Make the regional hospital board areas fit in with the economic regions. Administer them with the same economic sub-regions as will be set up, and then cast an eye on democracy.
Where can it be more important than in health? Which, of all the national services, serves the community as much as health? I ask hon. Members to analyse how conscious the Health Service is in general of consumer reaction; how much has it embraced the concept of client control. In injecting a democratic element into any new and integrated Health Service we should look at the principle of consumer councils, operating on a far more active scale than at present, freely elected, and, if possible, set up not to engender party politics and party political decisions. Let them come from central Government, but let these consumer councils speak for the locality and speak for democracy.
They would be respected; it would be a great honour to be elected to such a council, and we would have people of all walks of life putting themselves up to speak for the community. We would


also be able to recapture the principle of local participation that is so vital to health. This has to some extent been lost through the Health Service. The spirit has not died, but it needs rekindling, and it could be a valuable remedy for the manpower shortage in the Service. Many hospitals have already tried using voluntary workers and the results in terms of enthusiasm have been outstanding. This could help to overcome the present acute shortages.
The divisive administrative structure impedes progress. The isolation breeds intellectual sterility, not only among doctors but among social workers, and a lack of understanding and frustration among patients. Now is the time to act decisively and to set up a pilot control. This debate could be the start of a new concept of health in the community.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: Thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) and Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and the stimulating speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth. Sutton (Dr. David Owen), we have had an interesting and valuable debate. It is clear that the National Health Service is going through a period of acute difficulty, that there are insufficient doctors and that their workload is increasing and preventing them from practising good medicine.
The population in my constituency has been increasing rapidly recently, and twice in the last few weeks I have had to write to the local evecutive council for Essex about the shortage of doctors locally. No doubt many other hon. Members have had similar experiences. This is not the fault of the Minister or his predecessors. The truth is that successive Ministers of Health have been unable to secure sufficient resources from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to sustain an adequate and expanding Health Service. But it may be that we could organise the use of our available resources more skilfully and productively than we do. That is why we are looking forward to hearing the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend's charges.
It is good to stand back sometimes to take a long cool look at our institutions and consider whether they shoud be im-

proved. I believe passionately in the concept of a Health Service, but its strongest supporters would not maintain that it is functioning smoothly and could not be improved. If the tripartite system—of the general medical service, the hospital service and local authority services—works, it is not because of its inherent virtues, but because of the dedication and skill of the lay and professional people who work in it.
There is plenty of evidence that the system is defective. Co-ordination is difficult and this militates against the provision of the best possible service for the patient. Because the three parts are administered separately, there is often a feeling that doctors in each, with their supporting professions, are isolated from one another in the pursuit of what should be their common aim, the well-being of the patient. Because the three parts are financed separately, there is little incentive to use the resources in any one for the maximum benefit of all. I have often thought—I shall be interested in the Minister's views on this—that a much greater investment in the supporting services for general practitioners, who deal with over 90 per cent. of all illness, and in diagnostic and treatment aids for them would reduce pressure on the hospitals.
There are at least two unsatisfactory aspects of the present relationship between local authority services and other parts of the Health Service. First, the geographical areas covered by the three parts of the system are not always conterminous. The regional hospital boards, almost always, and executive councils, sometimes cover much wider areas than a particular local health authority. There is a widespread feeling in local government that it should have a greater say in hospital management, which is understandable when we recall that before 1948 many local authorities ran their own hospitals.
Secondly, while local authorities must submit proposals for new development in their health services to other interested parties, which include regional hospital boards and executive councils, and through them the local medical committees, there is no similar requirement, as far as I am aware, for the hospital boards and for executive councils to keep local authorities informed of developments in their own field.
Hospital authorities are often forgetful of the need to keep local authorities abreast of developments which are important to both. It is true that ad hoc liaison committees exist to deal with paricular services such as maternity and mental health, and these help, but they have no executive functions, and where they recommend the spending of money there may or may not be a conflict between separately administered and financed services with different ideas of what the priorities shoud be.
My hon. Friend described in detail how the tripartite system came about and mentioned the Coalition White Paper of February, 1944, which sought to avoid precisely the defects which are now seen to exist. That White Paper proposed that the different branches of the medical Services—hospitals, dentists, doctors, preventive health and welfare—should all be administered by joint authorities consisting of combinations of the larger local authorities. It was the professions themselves, particularly the consultants, who jibbed at the idea of control by local authorities, and so the proposal was dropped. I am not saying that it was wrong to drop it at the time. In the event, however, local authorities lost control over their own hospitals.
Eight years after the establishment of the Health Service, the system was examined by the Guillebaud Committee. They were unhappy about the division of functions within the Service, but they thought—who is to say that they were wrong at that time?—it was too soon to make changes. Six years after that came the comprehensive review by a very distinguished professional Committee headed by Sir Arthur Porritt. My hon. Friend mentioned that Committee's recommendations, and I will not go over them again. Suffice it to say that the Porritt Report was an attempt to deal with what Guillebaud recognised as a manifestly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
It is true that since then we have had the hospital plan and the long-term development of the local authority health and welfare services, which were intended to improve not merely the quality of the personal health services of this country but their co-ordination. It is also true that one cannot accept the Porritt recommendations in their entirety. To do this

would mean to separate the personal health services of local authorities from the welfare services. I agree that that would be utterly wrong. These are services affecting the interests of children, the elderly, and the mentally and physically handicapped. It would also mean taking the personal service away from the local authorities, and that would be wrong, too. For it would reduce the valuable rôle played by the medical officer of health and hinder the development of the preventive side of health. Moreover, local authority health and welfare services are under review at present. I can only hazard a guess as to what may emerge from these deliberations.
There may be recommended a family service—one service embracing child care, school health and welfare—and certainly all modern social thinking points in that direction. The argument seems to be in favour of more integration and less fragmentation of the personal services. On the other hand, the review may confirm what we already know; that there is wide disparity of provision as between one local authority and another. This is especially marked with the development of new services, and as new services develop we see some local authorities lagging behind with the more progressive ones forging ahead.
So, if I can bring the threads of the argument together, why cannot we secure the integration which Porritt recommended and which is so essential to the proper performance of the Health Service and the democratic control provided by local authorities? When the Service was established in 1948 it reversed the trend towards increasing local authority responsibility. That was probably due to the feeling that the manifestly unsatisfactory structure of local government made it unsatisfactory to carry the new Service. However, in recent years there has been a swing in opinion, partly because of the realisation that efficient units of local government of suitable size and resources are able to play an increasingly valuable rôle in promoting health and well-being, and partly because they are in close touch with the community's needs and the concept of care within the community rather than in institutions makes good sense.
I suppose that a cynic might remark that one reason for this change in attitude is that hospital authorities, based on a system on nomination rather than on one of democratic selection, have sometimes shown themselves to be out of touch with local feeling. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion sought to illustrate this earlier. Certainly, the hospital service generally has had to turn more and more for co-operation to local authorities, and this has resulted in the provision of more home nursing and midwifery facilities. Further, a strong boost was given by the Mental Health Act, 1959, to the part which local authorities can play in reducing the hospital population.
There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that suitably sized units of local government could not assume still larger health functions. If, as a result of local government reform, we secure larger and more efficient units of administration, there is a strong case for the setting up of a health board, as Porritt recommended, within each county or county borough, linked with the local authority and charged with the duty of administering an integrated service.

Dr. David Owen: I do not think that it was a concept of Porritt that it should be linked with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a revolutionary and interesting idea. It might be bitterly opposed by the medical profession, although that is no reason for rejecting it. But are we to gather that the hon. Gentleman is now adducing official Conservative policy in suggesting the integration of the health services along those lines?

Mr. Braine: No. On this point I am not putting forward any official ideas. I am speaking for myself.
The hon. Gentleman is right in correcting me because what I was suggesting was not one of Porritt's recommendations. In suggesting the setting up of a health board within each sizeable county or county borough, linked with local authorities and charged with the duty of administering an integrated service, I am merely bringing together the concept of Porritt and the desirability of having some elected element brought in

so that the whole structure can become democratic.
I am, therefore, throwing out these ideas in the hope that the Minister will do what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) asked him to do; with or without clothes, to take a dive into the deep end and grasp the nettle—although I do not see how he could do both at once—and make the position clear. What we are trying to do is to persuade the Minister to respond to these suggestions.
Sooner or later, administrative reform must come; the hon. Gentleman admits that. He did not go into great detail, but I suggest that if administrative reform comes, and there is integration, it must be an integration that involves all three parts of the Service, not missing out the local authority health and welfare services. Indeed, I cannot envisage a situation in which the local authorities would agree to a surrender of their very valuable functions unless there was an integration in which they themselves could take part.
I come to the one suggestion that we on this side would officially make, and that is that there should be experiment. Why should there not be experiment? Do we not have regions and cities with great civic and regional pride, and with a great tradition of co-operation? I shall not name any specifically—we all have great cities in our mind. I look at the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) at the moment—Liverpool might make an admirable place for experiment of this kind. We would welcome, therefore, some indication from the Minister that he has the imagination and the courage to think along these lines. With or without his clothes, we invite him to take the plunge.

10.52 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): We have had a very useful and interesting debate dealing with matters both general and particular in the National Health Service. It suggests to me a degree of interest in health which is not exactly reflected by the proportion of time which the House normally gives to the affairs of the Service. If it has done nothing else, the debate has, at least, conjured up a picture of the Minister leaping, clad or unclad, into an unnamed


swimming-pool, bravely grasping a nettle in each hand—and that was, I suppose, worth sitting through the debate for.
First, let me deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling). He will agree that the hospital service in Brighton has been the subject of much interest recently, and I am very grateful that my own concern for the service in this area is shared by a number of hon. Members. At the same time, I doubt very much whether the hon. Gentleman furthered what case he had by overstating it, as he did.
I strongly dissent from the hon. Gentleman's earlier suggestion that the difficulties experienced in Brighton were somehow typical of the country as a whole. This is not so. I think that the consultants generally recognise that we are getting ahead at an ever-increasing pace with the modernisation, long overdue, of our hospitals; and that we are today building as fine and as modern hospitals as any country, not excluding the United States of America.
The hospitals of the Brighton and Lewes Hospital Management Committee, despite, in many cases, out-of-date buildings and a heavy and increasing burden of work, provide a first-class service to the patient, and I am happy to pay a tribute to the way in which doctors, nurses and other staff of Brighton hospitals have worked, as they always do, for the benefit of their patients. I should not wish them to believe that the present differences of opinion on a particular matter reflect in any way on their devoted work.
I should explain the difference in emphasis between the hospital plan at Brighton, set out by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in 1962, and the present proposals of the regional board as approved by me in the recently published hospital building programme. The earlier plan was for parallel development of the Royal Sussex County and the Brighton general hospitals over 15 years, and the building at the end of this period of a new district hospital at Hove. As with so many proposals of that time, it became clear all too soon that national resources—and, more particularly, the resources that could be allocated to the regional board—could not encompass the building or rebuilding of three major hospitals in this one hospital management committee area. Indeed,

assuming that the population of the area will be about 350,000 by 1981—it is now about 267,000—three large hospitals would be too many. Two ought to be able to provide a very satisfactory service.
I want to say a word about the regional hospital board. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion made a number of aspersions about the board and its members. He made a personal attack, which I regretted, on the chairman of the board, a very distinguished person who has given long service in a voluntary capacity to the Health Service; and on the senior administrative medical officer, who is a public servant and cannot answer for himself. I think that the hon. Member, on reflection, may feel that the personal attacks he made were not exactly in the traditions of this House. I repeat what I have told him privately, that I have full confidence in the board, in its chairman and its officers.
In another respect, I thought that the hon. Member was less than fair to the board. He put a Question to me the other day. I thought that at least he might have been gratified to learn that the average age of the members of the board was two years less than his age, but tonight he has spent a lot of time in suggesting that they are a lot of old fuddy-duddies. I do not know what that makes him.
The regional hospital board proposed in its review of its plans for which I asked last year two phases in the development in phases of the Royal Sussex County Hospital. This is not what the hon. Member described as the 1959 plan. The first phase is to consist of an accident centre, operating theatre and the X-ray department, all of which is urgently needed to enable the hospital to treat more patients more quickly. In addition, more beds will be needed to reduce the pressure on existing beds.
The first phase also includes a new boiler house for the whole redeveloped hospital and administration offices and some accommodation for non-resident staff. The whole of the planning for this scheme was completed over 1961–64 and the cost limit was agreed by my Department as long ago as May, 1964. Since then the scheme has been merely awaiting a place in the four years' financial programme. The cost of phase I of the development of the Royal Sussex County


Hospital, including beds and equipment, is £1·6 million. I mention that as a contrast to the figures which have been bandied about of £6 million and £20 million. They have been widely canvassed, but their derivation has never been spelled out to me, certainly not the £20 million. This suggested alternative of £6 million and £20 million is a complete myth, as I hope to show.
In December last, the hon. Member gave me a memorandum containing suggestions for a different form of hospital development for Brighton. This was elaborated later in a plan which became known as the consultants' plan for, as the hon. Member said, a completely new hospital at Stanmer Park on a site adjoining the University of Sussex. The consultants' plan has appeared in two, if not three, different versions. I shall deal with the latest. It is not true to say that I have not seen it. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) handed it personally to me several months ago.
This consisted in brief of a scheme to build not a full district general hospital, but a highly intensive small hospital of about 480 beds in which patients would stay for not more than five days and then be discharged either to home or to other Brighton hospitals. The hon. Member for Hove talked of the virtues of segregating patients who need intensive care from those who need intermediate care. There is considerable virtue in segregating within a single hospital. This is not a new concept. It is being carried out in many hospitals in the country at the moment. It is a very different matter to think of segregating them in two different hospitals. Indeed, this concept of an exclusively intensive care hospital does not commend itself to my advisers or to me in general.
But I admit that at first sight the scheme did present some attractions. I was told that it could be built for only £3,700,000 as compared with something under £7 million for the first three phases of the Royal Sussex County proposal. Well, I am always anxious to keep down the capital cost of hospital provision to the absolute minimum so that the boards can get the best value for money consistent with the best service to the patient.
However, although I have been given no later details, I learned from the hon.

Gentleman's Question on 25th July that the cost has now risen from £3,700,000 to £6 million. Moreover, my attention has been drawn to the fact that the consultants' plan does not include any proposal for building residential accommodation for the very numerous medical and nursing staff who would be needed to run the hospital. On a new site there would be no existing accommodation for such staff at all. Even in developing the Royal Sussex County Hospital the board has found it necessary to include extensive staff accommodation in later stages of the development.
I have mentioned this to illustrate that this was not quite the fully thought-out scheme which the hon. Gentleman represented it as being. It was also clear that their plan did not take into account the cost of upgrading the Royal Sussex County and Brighton General, which would still be required in a supportive or satellite capacity to provide medical facilities not provided by the new hospital and beds for patients who could not be discharged home after five days.
The plan would, in fact, entail three hospitals—the new hospital, the Royal Sussex County and the Brighton General—and I have already explained that two hospitals are all Brighton will need in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, there would be running costs of something like £1 million a year for the new hospital.
Nevertheless, so that the consultant's plan should have a fair hearing, the regional board was ready, with the management committee, to meet representatives of the consultants to discuss the merits of the two schemes and the meeting was held on 14th April. The board reported to me afterwards that it and the hospital management committee were agreed that the Royal Sussex County scheme had a number of advantages, not the least of which was that it could be started immediately.
Planning is a process which takes several years in the case of a large and complicated building such as a hospital, and it is one which requires a considerable degree of expertise. This scheme has been planned in detail over a period of four years and was ready to go to tender in March, 1965. To shelve it


in favour of a completely different scheme, quite apart from other considerations, would have involved quite unacceptable delay in effecting urgently needed improvements in the hospital services in Brighton.
I accepted the regional board's recommendations. They coincide with the view I had myself formed after careful consideration of the consultants' plan by my Department which I set in train in response to the request of the hon. Gentleman himself. The contractor for the Royal Sussex County scheme has now been appointed and work is due to start on the site this month. Hon. Members opposite have attempted to draw comparisons between the two schemes, claiming that the consultants' plan will cost only £6 million and the regional board's plan £20 million. I have shown that the two concepts are quite different and that no basis for comparison of true cost exists——

Mr. Maddan: We cannot spend a great deal of time on this, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that as I rose to speak Mr. Speaker asked that we should be brief and I therefore was brief. That may explain why the Minister has failed to grasp what these plans are about. May I ask him, therefore, whether he would see me personally either later tonight or tomorrow morning so that I can go through the comparison again in detail and show that like is being compared with like?

Mr. Robinson: Much as I always enjoy talking to the hon. Member, I assure him that I really do understand what this is about. The thing has been explained, as far as it is capable of being explained, by the authors of the plan. It has been exhaustively looked at by my Department——

Mr. Maddan: No.

Mr. Robinson: —and I assure the hon. Member that there is no question whatever that like is being compared with unlike. Six million pounds is, apparently, the latest cost of the hospital, which has not been taken anywhere near the final cost stage of planning.

Mr. Maddan: Mr. Maddan rose——

Mr. Robinson: I am sorry, I am not giving way again, because I assure the

hon. Member that these plans have been exhaustively studied, and I am quite satisfied that the board has come to the right decision.

Mr. Maddan: I am only trying to help the Minister——

Mr. Robinson: With the greatest respect, I do not need——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) must resume his seat.

Mr. Maddan: Mr. Maddan rose——

Mr. Robinson: I have not given way, except to the occupant of the Chair, as is customary in this House.
Perhaps I may now come to the point raised by the hon. Member about the site of the Hove General Hospital. It is still the intention of the regional board ultimately to provide a new district general hospital in Hove. I understand that the site in question has been informally earmarked by the local authority for hospital purposes, although not specifically designated. The position is that it will still be required in due course, but the site is still in the ownership of Hove Borough Council, which is entitled to use the land in any way it likes subject to the gentleman's agreement which it has made with the board. There is no objection by my Department and the board to the Territorial Association erecting a temporary building on the land.
Perhaps I may turn now to the more general matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean).

Sir W. Teeling: Before the Minister leaves the question of Brighton, can he explain why, to expedite a decision, he is not prepared to see the consultants, who have worked so hard on the subject? If he would do this, everybody would be satisfied.

Mr. Robinson: Because the planning authority for the area is the regional board and unless I have lost confidence in the board, which is my agent, I will not spend time with a lot of amateur planners planning a hospital which, I am satisfied, would not meet the requirements of the area. I am speaking not simply as Minister, but as one who has


been advised by people with great expertise in these matters. I know that the hon. Member is not satisfied. I did not expect him to be satisfied. I beg him to believe that this is now water under the bridge.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question of the Porritt Report, which was raised by the hon. Member for Somerset, North and on which the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) made a contribution. It is a little difficult when dealing with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. When he speaks from the Dispatch Box, I naturally assume that he is speaking officially in the name of the Opposition, but halfway through his speech he rather disclaimed that and said: "For the next little bit of my speech, I am speaking officially". The hon. Member must decide what hat he is wearing and what bench he is speaking from before he contributes to these debates.
The hon. Member referred to one aspect of the Porritt Report. It covered 20 out of the 600 paragraphs of the total Report, but it is quite true that this is the aspect for which the Porritt Committee will always be best remembered. It relates to the co-ordination of health services. This is a problem which has always been in the minds of those responsible for running the Service and its various parts. Certainly it was in Aneurin Bevan's mind when he created the National Health Service after the war, and this can be easily seen by reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of those debates.
It is sometimes claimed that the problems of co-ordination have been recognised and identified only from the experience of particular difficulties. One might almost think that the concept of co-ordination was invented somewhere in the 1950s and then urged on the managers of the Health Service, who had hitherto been unaware of the problem. We do our predecessors an injustice in arguing in this way, and I could prove the fallacy if I had time.
My own view is that the true situation is very nearly the reverse of the theory I have just described. The creation of the Health Service was the biggest single step in securing co-ordination of the health services that this country has ever seen, or is likely to see in the foreseeable

future. There is always plenty of room for improvement, but the opportunities for the individual patient—this matter is what concerns me—to take advantage of a co-ordinated service are out of all proportion to what he would have found before the Health Service, let alone before 1939.
To put the matter in perspective, we should look on the emphasis given in recent years to problems of co-ordination not so much as the identification of a glaring fault but as evidence that the continuing need to keep the organisation of the service under review is widely recognised, both within my Department and elsewhere. I hope that I have never shown signs of being too easily satisfied with the status quo, and I trust, therefore, that no one will take what I have just said as meaning that I think that all is well and that we do not need to do anything more. I well know that this is far from being the case. With all the preoccupations of one crisis or another—I doubt whether the Health Service has ever been without its current crisis at any given moment—the concept of strengthening the links between different parts of the service and the different kinds of service that an individual patient might need has never been very far from my mind.
We have made special arrangements for co-ordination in a number of major matters. We issued plans in May and June this year covering respectively the hospital building programme and the health and welfare programme, and both these documents represent a substantial degree of co-ordination of services. In producing their plans, the Health Service authorities do consult each other, even without the regular exhortations to do so issued from my Department.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East was wrong in what he said about there having been no requirement to consult in the production of those plans. I hope that there is no authority that would reckon to produce a plan nowadays without discussion and consultation with other authorities and interested parties in its area.
Apart from these major planning exercises, work has been done on the coordination of particular kinds of services as between different participating authorities. Last September, my Department


sent a memorandum to local authorities and hospital authorities on the subject of care of the elderly in hospitals and in residential homes. In the past, we did have what I think the hon. Member for Somerset, North called demarcation disputes in the care of the elderly, which were apt to provoke loss of time and sometimes of temper, and which, worst of all, might leave the individual patient without the care he needed. Here, too, if there was isolationism in the past, there is today a full recognition of the need for co-ordinated services and for genuine co-operation between those who provide them.
Similarly, we could look at mental illness and mental sub-normality. The need for close working links between the local health authority and general practitioner services was stressed in two memoranda issued from my Ministry in 1964 and 1965 on improving the effectiveness of hospitals for the mentally ill and mentally subnormal respectively, one in the time of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East and one in my time.

Mr. Braine: But does not the mere fact that the Ministry has from time to time to issue hospital authorities memoranda based, presumably, on the best practice indicate that there is a need for some co-ordination not only at the Ministry level, but even at the lower level?

Mr. Robinson: I have never denied that there is need for co-ordination. I am seeking to demonstrate that we are doing something about the need, and I shall go on to demonstrate that the solutions put forward in this debate are not necessarily the right or the only solutions.

Mr. Braine: Mr. Braine rose——

Mr. Robinson: No, I shall not give way again. There are over two dozen other subjects to be raised, and the hon. Gentleman must have some regard for those who are to follow.
The maternity services have been mentioned. There have been considerable developments here, also. I could give a number of examples, but, in view of the time, I shall not do so tonight. It is a fact that co-ordination is improving day by day, and I believe that everyone in the Service is now fully conscious of its importance.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North spoke about the Porritt Committee's recommendation that we should have area health boards, and he asked for my views on this. He did not quote something else which the Porritt Committee said about the need for operational research. I assure him that in the last year or two very many operational research studies have been started by or sponsored by my Department, and a good deal is going on in this field now.
I have been talking about co-ordination in a rather wider sense because, in my view, discussion of this subject usually proceeds on the basis of a common misconception, and I want to try to dispel it if I can. This misconception is that the royal road to co-ordination is by way of spectacular changes in administrative structure. The Porritt Committee suggested that the area health board was the best way to go about it. I agree that, when it comes to planning the services, integrated authorities would more easily produce integrated plans, although, as I have tried to show, separate authorities have now seen the virtues of consultation. But what some people, by what I think is a logical fallacy, tend all too quickly to conclude is that an integration of authorities is also the right means to provide continuity of care for the individual patient.
In general, the sort of problems which arise are those when a patient's care is handed from one doctor to another, from a doctor to a local authority worker or in some such way between two units of the Health Service, or even in the wider context of the social services generally. Whether such movements will work smoothly depends, in my view, not nearly so much on administrative structure as on willing co-operation between the individuals concerned. It is, in my view, right, therefore, that over the last few years we have concentrated in our efforts to secure constantly improving co-ordination on the individual local links between people and between units, links between the general practitioner and the health visitor, the medical officer of health, the specialist, the hospital, the old people's home, the training centre. All these individual local links can be strengthened and tested to provide the individual patient with the care he needs.
But, having said all this, I do not have it in mind to deny the importance of what the hon. Gentleman said, or what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), even if I cannot altogether accept his rather gloomy forebodings of the impending collapse of the Health Service. In the long term, there may well be a case for administrative changes, and we are thinking about such possibilities.
The area health board was not a concept invented by the Porritt Committee. The idea had existed in one form or another for quite a long time. Its particular difficulties were recognised, I think, even at the time when the Health Service was set up. One was that the regions, which have proved suitable units for planning hospital services, are too large for the administration of what are now local authority and executive council services, while an area suitable for the latter would be wholly inappropriate for planning a coordinated hospital service.
Another difficulty is the determination of who should serve on an area health board—a detail on which the Porritt Committee was utterly silent. At present, the three main Health Service authorities contain between them a very wide range of representation, and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to fit them all into a single committee.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could enlarge on that point, because it is one which I find very interesting? When talking about the Porritt Committee's recommendations for area health boards, it is clear that the Committee recommended merely the bringing together of the hospital services and the local authority services, leaving the general practitioner services outside altogether. I am glad to hear the Minister talking now as if the area health boards would bring all three sections together. Would he make the distinction clearly that he is departing from Porritt and going more on to the concept of all-embracing health boards?

Mr. Robinson: It must be made clear that I am not making policy statements of future intentions. However, if one

were envisaging a major structure change, the case would be for co-ordinating all three rather than merely two parts of the Service.
I have been told a story—I do not know whether it is apocryphal or not—that Aneurin Bevan was asked why he did not introduce area boards and he said that he might have considered the idea had he been able to ensure that each such board could have the Albert Hall to meet in. That illustrates the difficulty of getting the great range of talent together that one needs represented on a single committee.
I would not want to exclude for all time the possibility of changing the present administrative structure of the Service or of introducing a more unified type of administration. It was suggested, particularly by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, that one should not introduce a change universally, but try it out first in one or other area by way of an experiment. The point was also made by the hon. Member for Somerset, North. Different ways of conducting such experiments have been suggested. In some places—and I am thinking particularly of the medical services to be provided in the new development in the Woolwich-Erith area of London—experiments in co-ordinated community care are now being launched. That may be the right way to make progress.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the long-term study group which I set up soon after coming to the Ministry. I can assure him that that group is bound to consider ways of securing closer integration of the services. I deliberately did not give it any formal terms of reference. With a collection of distinguished individuals like its members, it is far better to give them a free hand and a roving commission. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they are making full use of their opportunities.
In conclusion, I would only say that our Health Service will not stand still. I agree that we must always be looking for ways to reform it, to improve it and to enable it to provide better care for the person who really matters, and that is the individual patient.

CHRONICALLY DISABLED (ELECTRONIC AID)

11.24 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I am glad of this chance of speaking about a limited number of people who appear to have been forgotten. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will wish to do all that they can to alleviate the misery of those who are unable to help themselves, especially if action can be taken at less cost to the community than at present. If such can be done, that is true economy.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that on 4th July I asked him what his plans were for the research team responsible for the production in recent years of the patient-operated selector mechanism, known as "Possum", at Stoke Mandeville, to carry on its research, and whether he would make the mechanism available to those who are paralysed through poliomyelitis or road accidents, so that they might lead a useful life at home and thereby free beds in hospitals.
The hon. Gentleman told me that he was arranging to supply the mechanism to suitable patients under the National Health Service, and that he was ready to consider any proposals for further research. In reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), he said that the Government had entered into a contract with the team I had mentioned for the production and maintenance of a number of units.
Before I deal with the correspondence with the Ministry of Health, I hope that the House will consider the position throughout the country of the young and middle-aged who are considered to be chronically sick. These patients are almost wholly dependent on others. Simple movements that we are apt to take for granted are to them major obstacles. Many have to be helped even to move in bed—if they lie motionless for more than a few hours they can develop severe bedsores—and control of the bladder and bowels is often lost.
I understand that the title "young chronic sick" excludes the blind, deaf, dumb, epileptic and mentally defective. According to one report that I have

seen, 34 per cent. of those affected in this way who are in hospital could be returned home if adequate help were available, but the bulk are now in institutions because, first, their problems are too great for their own families to cope with; secondly, because they cannot be left alone between the visits of home helps and district nurses while their spouse, parent or child earns the family living; or, thirdly, because the unrelieved strain of those caring for them becomes intolerable. I know of one man who, while caring for his wife, had a mental breakdown, with the result that she had to go into hospital at very considerable cost to the State.
Many of these patients either lie in contractual beds or in geriatric wards, though there are some units for the young chronically sick. Yet nobody—but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us—seems to know, because there must be many at home, how many there are, what diseases are most frequent, even how many are lying in general wards or are waiting for a bed or for how long they have to wait.
I believe that both sides of the House agree that institutions are bad for children—hence the great growth in recent years of foster parentage. So I believe that institutions are bad for the mature as well. Institutionalisation means the break-up of homes and also a very considerable burden financially on the country. I am not suggesting that the "Possum" apparatus can solve the problems of all those I have mentioned, but it is possible that this remarkable apparatus can help a great number of those afflicted either by polio, which luckily is becoming rarer, or through motor accidents, which, unfortunately, are becoming more frequent.
These machines enable those with strength of character largely to overcome their disabilities and to lead useful lives which are productive and can even be wage-earning. I think that it is agreed that the present lack of facilities for caring for the young and middle-aged chronic sick in homes means that the care of these patients is progressively difficult. Yet those of us who have seen some of the apparatus invented at Stoke Mandeville by Mr. Maling and his team realise the great scope for lessening un-happiness that his invention has brought.
I first heard of this when a very old friend of mine wrote to me about the apparatus, saying how worried he was that the team was to be forced out of Stoke Mandeville Hospital. His wife was a polio victim in 1957 and it was not until last year that he was able, by investing less than £150, to ease the family burden.
I should explain that, although someone may be paralysed from the neck downwards, provided that he can speak and use his mouth there is no reason why he should not be able to answer the telephone, to ring up anyone he wishes, to turn on or off whatever heat is needed, to turn on or off the radio and the television, to change the brightness or level of sound or even to open the front door or to operate a machine tool.
I have seen, at the exhibition of the World Federation of Occupational Therapists, held at the Central Hall a few weeks ago, a very bad spastic, who had been unable to communicate at all with the outside world until the age of seven. He was quite incapable of speech, although his mother had taught him to read. Yet there he was, typing at eight words a minute, sending out Morse and translating. All of these things are done by electrical impulses and codes.
An acquaintance of mine, who can only just move a finger and toe, by means of this apparatus, is 70 per cent. operative as a practising solicitor in London, despite the fact that he is in the equivalent of an iron lung all of the time. This new form of mental engineering is one of the most exciting inventions of our day. There have been many requests from all parts of the world for it, yet at the end of June of this year Mr. Maling and his team of nine were forced to leave Stoke Mandeville Hospital. For the last four years they had received great help from the Polio Research Fund, amounting to £60,000.
Obviously, the fund could not go on spending money indefinitely, especially as production of the machines, once proved, was not its job. I suggest that it is the job of Her Majesty's Government. I should add that it was suggested by the National Research and Development Corporation that Mr. Maling and his team should become employees of a small company called the Inertia

Switch Co. I have nothing against this company but Mr. Maling felt that profits would have to be the major consideration for a long time in order to build up reserves for the company and that it would have been very much better had his team been put in touch with a much larger organisation, which could look after the research side.
One of the problems of fitting the apparatus that I have described is that unlike a suit it cannot be mass produced and requires very careful fitting. It has to be a bespoke apparatus. The main part of the apparatus could be produced in bulk, but an expert must fit it to the means that the patient has for operation. It seems important that that basic manufacture should be undertaken by a company, but that the fitting of the product and further research should be undertaken by Mr. Maling and his team.
Since the Polio Research Fund grant came to an end, Mr. Maling has moved, thanks to the Bifurcated and Tubular Rivet Co.'s help, to a plot of land fairly near to Stoke Mandeville. His team remains approximately the same, but he has had to finance the whole project out of the remains of his own savings and the help of one of his friends.
The whole future of the project is in danger. On 4th July the Parliamentary Secretary said that he had entered into a contract with Mr. Maling. But Mr. Maling informs me that no contract has yet been entered into. I have a letter from the Ministry of Health dated 20th July, part of which reads:
… the Department was asked to consider whether in general financial support could be given to you on the expiry of your grant from the Polio Research Fund. As you were told, sufficient was known of your work to make a specific application unnecessary though certainly no commitment was given or implied that a grant would be forthcoming. No final decision had been reached on this matter before you decided to engage in manufacture yourself.
I may add that Mr. Maling tells we that he was never told that general financial support might be forthcoming nor do I understand how the Ministry hoped that he would hold his team together while it was still considering the matter. The letter goes on:
The situation then became different, because the question of general support—which is not the way in which our R and D funds are normally used, no longer arose.


This letter seemed to be entirely at variance with the answer by the Parliamentary Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East, although probably the Ministry still mean that a contract will ultimately be forthcoming.
It may well be that the research side can still be financed by the Polio Research Fund, or by the Government, but I must say that I am anxious that the public should be aware of the possibilities of this apparatus and that some orders should be forthcoming somewhere from the Ministry so that it is possible for those at present living useless lives to lead useful ones. I was interested to see in the Sunday Times of yesterday an advertisement for a biochemical engineering deputy-director in a new R and D unit. The advertisement stated:
The Ministry of Health has formed a new R and D unit at Roehampton … which is concerned with research into powered artificial limbs and similar appliances. The deputy-director will be responsible for the non-medical aspect of research into the design, manufacture, and fitting of artificial limbs and related appliances and the application of power to them. He will find considerable satisfaction in applying the results of modern technological progress to the evolution of powered mechanical aids for the limbless.
It seems to me that what Mr. Maling's team is doing is complementary to those who make powered limbs, thereby restoring control in three dimensions. Mr. Maling's team deals with those with a more severe disability, whose minute residual ability may allow movement in only one dimension; for example, the flicker of one finger, a toe, or into the dimension of time alone for those whose disability may be so complete that only the mouth is available for pressure or suction control. Yet even these can type at 25 words a minute.
It would seem to me that there is considerable disparity between the R and D unit at Roehampton, with a deputy-director having a salary of between £3,565 and £4,065—which is stated in the advertisement—and in Mr. Maling's team, where the top salary is £1,300. Yet, this latter team, at the Copenhagen conference, in 1963, of the International Society for Rehabilitation of the Disabled, received the award for "the most significant contribution to rehabilitation".
To institutionalise, in however good conditions, is to deprive the individual of

his or her most cherished consolation, love and comfort that only one's own home can provide. The "Possum" apparatus can help to keep a family together and I hope that the Minister will be able to say what action the Government are taking to aid this British invention so that it can continue to lead the world in medical engineering.
I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that on 4th July he said that the Minister
… is ready to consider any proposals for further research in this field."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 731; col. 16, 4th July, 1966.]
Could he now say whether the Government, being committed to the new R and D unit at Roehampton for powered artificial limbs is prepared to do the same for the remote controlled systems?

11.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I should like to make reference, first, to the general issues which have been referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) in the first part of his speech. I appreciate that all of us would agree that where it was possible to ensure that a patient could get adequate and complete treatment at home and, at the same time, possible for us to bring people out of hospital, this would not only be to our economic advantage but would be the best possible way of treating a patient, ensuring his convenience and mental well-being, and the mental well-being of his relatives.
I hope that the hon. Member will not expect me to go fully into this aspect of the problem, because tonight we are dealing with one issue—the apparatus to which he has made considerable reference. This apparatus is very complicated, and yet it produces for the patient a tremendous advantage owing to the simplicity of its operation. It is a piece of electronic apparatus operated by a simple suck-blow mechanism, and is intended for severely paralysed patients who are left with muscular control only over their mouths. By sucking and blowing in sequence a patient can perform many simple operations. He can operate a bell, or close a door, or even, in some instances, operate a suitably adapted electric typewriter.
Two types of equipment are available. The simple one makes possible the on-off control of eight pieces of electrical equipment, while the more elaborate one provides for a greater range of control. We have agreed that the simpler type shall be provided under the National Health Service. The number of very severely paralysed patients who can benefit from this is very small—possibly about 100—but for these few it will be of very great benefit. It may enable some who are now in hospital to return home, and I am sure that all of us would want to congratulate the inventor on the successful outcome of a lot of hard and enthusiastic work. The Ministry is impressed by this "Possum" apparatus, and we would like to see its distribution to our patients at the earliest moment.
The hon. Member referred to my replies to himself and to his hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) on 4th July. I concede immediately that when I replied to his hon. Friend's Question I incorrectly stated the position. What I had intended to say—as I think he knows—was that we were entering into negotiations for the contract, and not entering into a contract, with the inventor. That is the position at the moment; we are attempting to negotiate with the inventor, who holds the patent, for a production contract. We also hope to negotiate a contract with him for the maintenance of the equipment. Before completing such arrangements, we have to be satisfied that the contractor can fulfil his commitments. The premises and equipment must be adequate and financial records kept. Inquiries into these matters are in hand, but there seems little doubt that satisfactory arrangements can be made with the inventor-cum-contractor.
In 1962, the National Fund for Research into Poliomyelitis and other Crippling Diseases granted a sum of money for the project. I pay tribute to its substantial help to what it evidently saw as a development of great potential value to the disabled. The grant was for three years, and, with the co-operation of the Oxford Regional Hospital Board, the Royal Buckinghamshire and Associated Hospitals Management Committee and Sir Ludwig Guttman, the Director of the National Spinal Injuries Centre, at

Stoke Mandeville Hospital, premises and facilities were made available at Stoke Mandeville for the inventor and his team. We should congratulate not only the Polio Research Fund, but the people at Stoke Mandeville on the way in which they assisted Mr. Maling. The Prime Minister was there on Boxing Day, and later asked me, if I had the opportunity, to express in the House his appreciation of the work being done.
It was made clear to the inventor that the grant was for three years and would be administered by the Spinal Injuries Centre. It lasted longer, until June, 1966, by which time £60,000 had been spent. But he ought not to have had any doubt about the date of termination of the grant. It was also made clear that the accommodation at the hospital had to be vacated on 30th June, 1966, because it was needed for other purposes. The management committee gave him formal notice to this effect. We at the Ministry have also tried to co-operate as far as possible in the successful launching of this apparatus. We selected patients to take part in the trials. Before the grant from the Research Fund was ended, there were discussions about future arrangements for Mr. Maling's work.
At one stage proposals were made for "Possum" to be manufactured by an established electronics firm, to which Mr. Maling and some of his team would have been transferred. The hon. Member referred to the fact that this was only a small company and that Mr. Maling would have preferred to have a large company, but these plans were worked out with the assistance of the National Research and Development Corporation which felt that the company which was suggested to Mr. Maling was adequate and quite capable of doing the job. In the end, Mr. Maling decided that he would set up a firm of his own, using accommodation of his own, and it is with this firm that we are at present negotiating for the manufacture and subsequent maintenance of the apparatus.
We ought to be clear that the position at this point was that neither the expiry of the grant from the Polio Research Fund nor the discontinuance of the use of the hospital accommodation was sprung on Mr. Maling without notice. His decision to undertake manufacture


himself was quite freely taken and it involved the rejection of a definite proposal which had been worked out, with some trouble, for him and some of his team to join a firm which would be manufacturing Possum.
Research and development have been among the matters in which Mr. Maling has been most interested. I would stress first of all that the Minister's decision is that although no doubt further improvements can be made, the need is to get "Possum" into manufacture as it now is and to get it out to the patients. This is one of the biggest of the difficulties which arise from research of any kind—at which point to control the research so that the results of the research can be put to use. I would make it clear to the hon. Member and to Mr. Maling that our main interest at the moment is to get this into production and into the hands of our patients. I emphasise that we are very anxious that nothing should be allowed to interfere with that aim.
We have, however, told Mr. Maling that we shall be prepared to consider helping him with any future research projects which he may care to submit to us. In case there is likely to be any misunderstanding, I will enlarge on this. Originally, Mr. Maling asked the Department whether it would consider giving him general research and development funds or whether it would give him general financial support, that is, at the expiry of the grant from the Polio Research Fund. He thought that his team might be continued as a general reference laboratory for controls for the severely disabled. He was then told that they would be considered and that he need not make a formal application because enough was known of his work already, and this reference was made in a letter sent to him and read by the hon. Member.
But no commitment was given or implied that a grant would be forthcoming. Before any decisions were reached the circumstances were completely changed by Mr. Maling's decision to engage in manufacture himself. There was, therefore, no longer any question of making a general grant for the purpose of ensuring the continuance of the work of the members of his team, since this was, by virtue of their entry into the field of production, provided for.
In this new situation, the problem was the simple one of whether there were any specific research or development projects for which Mr. Maling wished to apply for financial help. He has been told that if he has any research and development projects, he should make application. We would be glad to consider any specific proposal that is submitted, although I could not express a view as to its likely outcome. Many projects, some deserving high priority, are competing for the Department's limited research and development funds. It would obviously be wrong of me to give to one person at this stage a prior commitment, before having the project before us.
We want to get this equipment to all patients who need it. There may be a demand for it abroad, and there are indications to that effect. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to organise satisfactory production so that the work to which so many people have contributed will come to fruition and that this apparatus will be available, since it will be valuable, even if to a limited number of patients.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I hope that the House will not think me unfair when I say that we have listened to the split personality of the Parliamentary Secretary trying to be himself and the underlying voice of the Treasury. I speak on this subject in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) because I live every day of my life through the agony of Stoke Mandeville and paraplegia. I know the work that Mr. Maling is doing and I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not amenable to the terms in which he spoker. Maling is an utterly dedicated man and dedication is something—and I say this to the Parliamentary Secretary remembering that he is a man of honour and integrity—which is unamenable to Treasury control.
Mr. Maling has enabled paraplegics and quadraparaplegics who, 20 years ago, would have been written off as dead by the best medical advice, to have at least some life. The great thing about Stoke Mandeville is the courage that the place has inspired in most of its patients. It is difficult, unless one has experienced it, to communicate this without becoming emotional. It is something which is not


amenable to ordinary Treasury control because it is beyond the wit of statistics to produce.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that, although the numbers are small in terms of numbers, they matter, because this is what democracy is about. The few, the exceptions, are the test of one's validity in standing as a democrat. It is not the majority. They win. The Government have their majority. Come what may, the Treasury has its control, but it is the ability to make exceptions that is the test.
Mr. Maling is, in my experience, one of those very dedicated men who deserves a little bit of exception from the rule of Treasury control. He happens to be not only a very dedicated man, but a genius to a little body of people who have had the misfortune to have their lives destroyed by an accident or a disease. This is where he matters, and the test of the validity of one's system is whether one is prepared to make these exceptions.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that whereas we have vastly improved our treatment of patients within the institutional atmosphere—we try to discharge them; they are good within the institution—there is a gap between the institution and returning to their home life, often not an ideal home life, but the life that is home to the individual patient. That involves not only the Ministry of Health, but also the local authorities, the voluntary societies and, above all, the families.
I speak from my knowledge of many patients at Stoke Mandeville when I say that there is a gap here. This does not apply only to paraplegics, but to others and, speaking of this not as a partisan matter, but simply as a Member for Parliament who has had experience of this, I say that this gap has to be filled if, as hon. Members on both sides like to think, we are a generous and a humane society. Not only is this true in terms of the individual human being, but I believe that it also makes economic sense. I know of quadraplegics—that is to say, people whose arms are half paralysed, as well as their lower limbs—who can still do a job of work—my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree referred to a

solicitor he knew. I could reproduce his experience in many cases.
I know through personal experience that there is here a gap in the Health Service. It is one that I hope will be filled—which must be filled. I say that sincerely and not in a way hostile to the Parliamentary Secretary. Mr. Maling is doing his best to fill that gap. We ought to be a society generous enough not to apply the ordinary, crude, acid test of Treasury control that may or may not have been applied in the case of Ferranti and Bloodhound and the Public Accounts Committee. We do not want to make the same error, but when we are dealing with men of the character and dedication of Mr. Maling we are dealing with people of a quite different order. However economically hard-pressed we may be, I hope that we shall not ever cease to be a generous society and have, on the Treasury Bench a generous Government.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: This is such an important matter that if one more voice from this side can give strength to the Parliamentary Secretary in hastening the production of "Possum," I shall not regret having joined in the debate.
When I first saw this machine in operation, some months ago, I was deeply impressed. It was operated by a young man who was completely paralysed by polio from the neck downwards. He was a very cheerful and very intelligent young man. He operated the machine by means of a whistle. He merely whistled in the ordinary way and that started a light moving around about a score of items. A second whistle, and the light stopped on the item. A third whistle, and the function started, such as turning over the page of a book in bed, turning his bed to a different angle, and so on.
This young man had been in hospital for many years. He had contracted polio while training for the Royal Air Force. His parents purchased "Possum" for, I think, £300. By that means they were able to have the boy at home. When I saw him, saw him operating the machine, and saw the cheerful way in which he and his family were able to complete the home by means of this machine, I said, "Is this not universal?" They answered, "No, it is not Health Service. We bought this ourselves."
I took up the case with the Parliamentary Secretary, who will recollect that he wrote to tell me that this was to be "on National Health" in future. I was delighted. For me, it seemed to be for many people the difference between life and a living death. It meant that so many could come home and live among their families. I must say that I have been extremely disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's speech. He spoke of a machine being produced—the simpler one—for about 100 people who might be able to use it.
Surely there are thousands of people in the country at present who could use not the simpler machine, but the one which I saw and which may cost a little more money. My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree mentioned not only polio victims, but victims of road accidents. More and more of these become paralysed and could use these machines. The Parliamentary Secretary is a forceful administrator. We know him as a sincere and forceful man. For goodness' sake can he not cut through the red tape and see that these machines are produced as they are so desperately wanted? I hope that this debate will strengthen him against whatever forces are against him and that he will be able to produce not just hundreds, but thousands of these machines which are needed.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I should like to make a few general points arising from what my hon. Friends have said and for the consideration of the Parliamentary Secretary, which, I hope, he will pass on to the Minister. In dealing with the apparatus, I hope that he will be able to say a little more about research not only into devices of this kind, but into the need for them and the scope for their use.
There was a clear discrepancy between the Parliamentary Secretary's estimate of the small number of people who could be helped by "Possum" and the several thousands suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) said that he thought a third of those now hospitalised or institutionalised could be treated at home through the use of this apparatus. When dealing with the question of cost and Treasury control, I

should have thought that a factor to be taken into account on the other side of the equation was the relief in money and manpower to the institutions concerned, although I know that would not be the main concern of the Parliamentary Secretary in dealing with a matter of such tremendous human importance.
This debate has shown that the whole question of research on the health and social security side is something which we still have not got quite right. I do not want the Parliamentary Secretary to think that I am blaming him for that. I hope that this debate will help us to see the need which exists and which we hope to meet in future. The pace of change in invention and the rate of increase in knowledge makes it a difficult problem to keep track of everything that is happening. I hope that the Ministry is considering not only the work of Mr. Maling and his team, but of other people working in allied fields in this country and abroad on private research and Government work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is fully informed on all these aspects of research not only into the apparatus, but into ways in which it is applied and the need for further research discloses.
I hope that in considering the research, the hon. Gentleman will not forget the question of development and training in fitting of apparatus, including the simpler kind done at Roehampton and the human aspects of dealing with patients in this environment when first they have an artificial limb or fitting. I have heard it suggested, for example, that perhaps the level of research work going on is not matched by some of the other amenities at Roehampton, that the layout could be improved and facilities such as privacy and rest rooms provided. I am not criticising what has been done before, but these things are needed to bring everything into line with more modern thought.
I think it true that there is a gap, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price). Nothing much is done in the Health Service for teaching patients to live in a normal environment — places where people can go to live the sort of life they live at home, but with people helping and teaching them. There also seems to me to be a big lack of centres where paraplegics, paralysed people and others


can get together and pool their knowledge and help each other. Surely there is a need outside the main institutions for somewhere where people can foregather in the course of their daily lives.
When it comes to the case of supplying not only "Possum", but other devices and other helps for the disabled, I hope that the Ministry can soon begin to take a broader and less legalistic attitude, especially when it comes to equipment or gadgets in general use which could, in the cases of people less affected, be used instead of more special apparatus.
There was the Question we had at Question Time today of the supplying of a car rather than an invalid carriage in certain circumstances. I know from my own experience with constituents that there is great difficulty in getting help even when something as simple as an automatic gear box on a car is all that is needed to enable the lightly disabled person to drive, but this cannot be done under the present system. The Ministry should consider the grants for self-help more generously and, if necessary, amend the Regulations to give a little more discretion to their officials.
I think—and my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) raised this at Question Time on 4th July—that there is a great danger that the whole work of research and the work of the Ministry in helping the disabled can be almost nullified by the lack of home help, the lack of ability to pay, and the need for allowances and benefits to enable people to stay at home.
There is one point we are all trying to make now and that is that we should enable the disabled to live as normal a life as is possible under the circumstances. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will be deluding themselves if they think that this can be done without a great deal more thought on the part of the Treasury, the Chancellor and the Minister of Social Security—more thought about benefits and about constant attendance allowances, a point we have consistently been putting forward from this side of the House.
There is also the question of co-ordination. I appeal to the Parliamentary

Secretary and the Minister to take on this responsibility of co-ordinating the work of other people, sometimes in very small things, of pushing their point of view on Ministries, on local authorities, on builders, manufacturers, architects and designers, so as to make life easier for the disabled; to get these people to realise that in their own work the problems of the handicapped can be enormously increased by simply having a slope instead of two steps.
Very often it is something which is very small indeed. It is a question of designing ordinary things in everyday use in a way which does not hinder the handicapped and which does not hinder other people either—matters such as pouring arrangements for saucepans and kettles, the siting of handrails, and the provision of ramps instead of steps.
These things are very apt to go by default, which is another aspect which has been stressed throughout this debate. We who are fortunate enough to be in full possession of all our faculties should do everything we can, and not count the cost, to seek to help those not so fortunate to live as full and as normal a life as they possibly can.
I had hoped that we should have been given some indications of the line of Ministry thinking on this matter. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would convey our hope from this side of the House that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will consult the new Minister of Social Security and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and take action on these items. Perhaps, at a later stage, he might even consider issuing a White Paper on this aspect of his Ministry's work, in which a small effort and a small cost could yield great dividends in terms of human happiness.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Loughlin: I would like to make a speech of less than half a minute, and I hope that the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) will forgive me for this. This debate was arranged as a debate concerning the "Possum" apparatus. I would have welcomed a debate on the general issues brought forward by the hon. Member for Farnham and other hon. Members. I assure the hon. Member that there is no question of Treasury control of any


kind holding up the "Possum" apparatus We want to get it into production and we are as eager as, if not more eager than, Mr. Maling to do this. If we can get it into production and to our patients, we shall be more than satisfied. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is a question not of Treasury control, but of getting the job done.

ANGLO-UNITED STATES AIR AGREEMENT

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: Before we leave the subject of the "Possum" apparatus, I should like to add that I have had two letters recently from constituents who are using it—and possibly the Parliamentary Secretary, when he is down in that direction, might go to see how they are getting on—who asked me to support my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) in any efforts that he might make to have this apparatus given more publicity, and any support that we can give on the lines indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary to make it of greater benefit for the community as a whole.
I turn now, however, to Command 3015 on what I call the Anglo-United States States Air Agreement. I apologise to the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who has had only a short time to deal with the matter, because, as I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman, I have been working on it for some time with Ministers in Ministries which, if they have not gone quite as fast as I expected, have practically ceased to exist and which have been dealing with these matters, which have now shifted to the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
Command 3015 is an innocuous-seeming document, but I should like the Minister to explain to the House the changes which have taken place on the 1946 Agreement, the so-called Bermuda Agreement, which for 20 years has conditioned the operation of civil airlines between this country and the United States of America on routes all over the world, and to forecast the advantages to be gained by the new Agree-

ment. I hope that my remarks will be constructive and helpful.
My reason for putting this matter to the House is that adequate United Kingdom and Commonwealth-based airlines are essential to the training and defence interests of this country. If this contention is accepted, it would give support to us being a modern industrial nation, not necessarily the largest nation, but a first-class nation based upon the technology of an adequate aircraft industry.
I should like to remind the Minister, although I am sure that it is not necessary, that in the debate on the Plowden Report, the Minister of Aviation said:
I make it clear now beyond doubt that the Government fully accept the case for this country having a substantial aircraft industry, both military and civil, and that we intend to carry out policies designed to make that possible."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 892.]
Why the point affects me particularly is that there are three parts of modern aircraft, airframes, engines and equipment—each accounting for roughly one-third of the production cost of aircraft; and I maintain that flight control equipment and hydraulics second to none in the world are designed and manufactured in my constituency. I like to concern myself—I do not want to worry; I hope that I will not have to do so—with the future employment of my constituents.
How does this new agreement give us the best chance to develop air routes based on a United Kingdom industry? In the summer of 1934 I was in the Secretariat in Khartoum when the Bullock Mission came from Britain to look into the building of some of the stages of the Empire air mail scheme, based on the Short flying-boat. Passenger and freight services were imaginatively developed decades ahead of anything else in the world at that time. There was excellent co-operation between Governments, who helped by sending their first-class air mail by this method, and the British aircraft industry, using British and Commonwealth airports in extending these services over a considerable part of the world.
But in those days there was remarkably little "by your leave", as for the most part we could count on airports or alighting areas for flying-boats which were within the control of this country. I


was then, and still am, a great supporter of Imperial Airways and of British Airways—incidentally, I ran into a pilot the other day, I had better not say where, who flew those flying-boats 32 years ago—and I am a great supporter of the lineal successors of those airlines, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. A successful pattern was established then of British Commonwealth airlines, British Commonwealth routes and British Commonwealth air industry.
Next, during the war I had the privilege of helping to develop a unique passenger and freight air and sea service, in and out of enemy-occupied Europe, and in the latter part of the war we had some first-class American aviators who came to help us. They used to discuss in the most friendly way how, the British, having had the seaways of the world for centuries, the future seemed to be for the United States to operate the airways. At that time they had the four-engined transport aircraft and we were largely limited to single-engined fighters.
The Bermuda Agreement signed after the war was, therefore, I think, partly defensive from our point of view. I think I am right in saying that Sir Henry Self, who led the United Kingdom delegation, came to Khartoum with the Bullock Mission in 1934 and for a long time played a distinguished part in British aviation and in international air transport administration.
It often puzzles me that, although the seaports of the world are free for use, the airports have not been so free. However, I am bound to admit that there is a difference between the two. So I ask the Minister what is the exact significance of paragraph 1(a) in page 2 of Cmnd. 3015, which says,
(a) The agreement shall be further amended as follows:
What is the reason for deleting paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section IV of the Annex to the original Agreement?
Secondly, in paragraph (b) it is stated that United Kingdom route 11 and United States route 3 may not commence before 1st January, 1970; as I read the Bermuda Agreement and this new Agreement, B.O.A.C. is surely already successfully flying on this particular route, route 11.
Paragraph (c) says, in line 5,
… there shall be no objection to the issuance of a foreign air carrier permit …".
In that context, I assume that the word "foreign" means also Commonwealth, as far as this country is concerned—that is, a Government or an airline not controlled by the United Kingdom Government.
I have a special interest in the routes which are covered by this Agreement, particularly those to the Caribbean and to South America through Bermuda and the Caribbean. Last year, with the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), I went out, at the invitation of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as he then was—now Minister of Overseas Development—to make certain investigations of a constitutional kind in two West Indian islands, and I found there that air transport was developing in a way which I had not realised in the United Kingdom. I found that traffic is increasing very rapidly from the United Kingdom and Europe to the Caribbean and South America. It is increasing also within the Caribbean and in Central and South America itself. The United Kingdom is in a position to develop these mid-Atlantic routes without any restrictions imposed by I.A.T.A. or, by the same token, by the agreement I am now discussing.
Feeder services could be built up at several points to make fuller use of the trunk services which can be developed from this country to the Caribbean and Central America, both passenger and freight. In the air transport world, we are sometimes apt to overlook the possibilities of freight transport. I shall not go into detail on this aspect because I have been working with Ministers on it, and I hope that there will be a satisfactory outcome.
As British South American Airways gave up, and B.O.A.C., I understand, refused to take on some of these South American traffic, independents should be further encouraged to extend operations onwards to the West Coast of South America and into Central America through the Caribbean. British United Airways is already making a valuable contribution on the very popular VC10 service to South America.
I believe that such independents must be given a reasonable amount of traffic


rights between the United Kingdom and the Caribbean if the service which I have mentioned is to be properly developed. I do not believe that they can fly the first 4,000 or 5,000 miles there and back without revenue being picked up at intermediate points in between, and the present expansion of traffic to these areas can give earnings to the independents without in any way damaging the existing services of B.O.A.C. Independents must have enough traffic rights to support another trunk route through the Caribbean to South America. As I say, I understand that B.O.A.C. refused to take on this area. The Government should not block any other independent which is willing to have a try.
I believe that such independent lines will operate entirely, or almost entirely, United Kingdom-built aircraft, if given the green light now to go ahead. I can tell the House that, when I was out there, I found that the VC10 had enormous passenger appeal. Wherever one went, the question asked was whether one had been in the VC10. I understand that the load factor over the break-even point is substantially higher in this aircraft than it is in the Boeing 707.
Can the Minister tell me what action the Government are taking to develop these United Kingdom and Commonwealth airlines before 1970, at which time, apparently, this agreement will limit certain developments, through these territories and islands? No permission is required from the I.A.T.A., and most of the points in which I am interested are not controlled in any way by our friends in the United States.
I have concentrated on routes 3 to 9 and 11 to 12 and the feeder services which go to feed those trunk routes, but there can be a great expansion, as aircraft ranges constantly increase, in other parts of the world, with the same pattern of United Kingdom and Commonwealth-based trunk lines and feeder services. We have seen this pattern developed successfully in Gibraltar and Malta nearer at home, and I can think of a number of Commonwealth islands which would enable expansion to be carried out in the Far East and Antipodes with feeder services coming into those Commonwealth points. Again, I believe that we could develop these Commonwealth services, based on Commonwealth built

aircraft. If Quantas is allowed to fly from Bermuda to Nassau and pick up traffic, why cannot a United Kingdom based independent?
Finally, I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will explain the changes that have taken place in the original 1946 Bermuda Agreement by this latest Command 3015 and will tell us that the expansion of traffic in friendly competition with our United States allies particularly will give advantages not only to the nationalised airlines, B.O.A.C., B.E.A. and Quantas, but to independents who wish to risk their own money. I hope that we shall be told that this is to be an Anglo-U.S. air agreement and not a B.O.A.C.-U.S. air agreement, and thereby that we can, by greater use of British aircraft, benefit British industry and technology, and help develop on the lines of the Empire air mail scheme an even more widely co-ordinated system to the greater benefit of British and Commonwealth trade and defence.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire) rose——

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) wish to speak on this topic?

Mr. Hastings: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My apologies for not making that point clear.
I wish to say a word or two in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) and to congratulate him for raising a matter which seems to me to be of the first importance.
First, I believe that the routes which he has mentioned and the area about which he has been talking provide a real opportunity for the sale of British short-haul aircraft. If the question about which he has been talking is pursued energetically, there is a possibility of extending the market substantially.
Secondly, I believe that the point which he made about the independents is a valid one. On the question as a whole, it is noticeable that over recent years the inclination of the independents nearly always to turn to British aircraft as opposed to foreign aircraft is in sad contrast to the choices which are made by the State airlines. It is something


which emerges from the speech which we have just heard from my hon. Friend, and it is yet another reason for the Government supporting by any means they can opportunities for the independents as well as the State airlines in these areas.
The Board of Trade has come into this sphere only recently. With its commercial experience, which is of very long standing, it has the ability to extend opportunity here. As the Minister will doubtless be aware, there is a real connection between the barter in air routes and the sale of aircraft. Perhaps it is something which is not publicised very often or openly acknowledged, but it remains a commercial fact about airline operations. Now that the Board of Trade is to have responsibility, I think that it could follow this question up, particularly with regard to the area which my hon. Friend has been discussing.
My hon. Friend mentioned freight. It is a market which is increasing at the rate of some 18 per cent. a year. It is a massive opportunity for us and, if I may say so to the Government, it is all the more regrettable that the future of the aircraft industry has been jeopardised, as it has, by the cancellations which have taken place over the last two years in this respect.
We have not the possibility of absorbing the market from the manufacturing point of view that we would have had if the Government had continued with the Hawker Siddeley 681. That could have been a world leader. The sad fact is that, as a result of that cancellation, within a measurable space of time we could be out of the freight market altogether from the manufacturing point of view. That does not excuse us if we fail to try and capture with whatever aircraft we may be operating a market expanding at this rate.
My hon. Friend mentioned the VC10 and I want to put another question to the Minister of State. This aircraft is without doubt proving to be commercially more successful than was ever appreciated or even perhaps imagined before it came into service. What disturbs me is that no facts or figures are forthcoming which are beyond dispute. We get one set from the manu-

facturers and unfortunately another set from the operators. There is far too much vagueness about this aircraft which, without doubt, is today a world leader.
I should like to see the Government going into this question and proving what I believe—or I would not ask the question—without peradventure, that it is the most economically successful long-range jet operating today. If they are satisfied that is the case, let the Government produce the figures, brandish them to the world, and see if they cannot do something to recoup from the sad failure which has been made from the sales point of view of an aircraft which is proving in every other way technically and economically a magnificent success. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this question and I am sure the Minister of State will give it the weight it deserves.

12.37 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): The subject of the debate is the Anglo-United States Air Agreement. If the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) had let me know about the questions he wished to raise I would have been prepared to answer him.
I should begin by saying that I have been asked to reply. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) is aware, these important matters come within the scope of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is unavoidably unable to be present.
The hon. Member was good enough to tell me what he intended to say, however, and I have been able to look into his comments on the Agreement and his very constructive proposals and to have consultations in order to give him some of the facts he wants. I hope my reply will be acceptable to him.
The Air Services Agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom is just about the most important air agreement between countries for the worldwide significance of routes and their scale and value. Since 1946, when the original Agreement was signed, there have been many additions and changes in the routes available, both for the American and the British airlines, but the most comprehensive revision of these routes was that successfully included in the negotiations which have led to this Agreement.
The changes that have been made have taken the form of an extensive revision of the routes that are available to both sides out of the experience of flying over the last 20 years. Agreement was reached on a number of important new route rights for both countries' airlines and on amendments to other routes as well. Some routes which were not operated but which were in the original Agreement or no longer corresponded to sovereignty over territories were pruned out.
The hon. Member asked for information on what the new Agreement will achieve. First, the United Kingdom secured its main objective in the negotiations—to secure routes for the international trunk service of B.O.A.C. through New York and across the United States and the Pacific to Australia and New Zealand. That was the real achievement in that regard.
This will strengthen the Commonwealth links which we all want to see. I understand that B.O.A.C. plans to introduce services on this new route to Australia next year. The United Kingdom gains other rights in the United States, particularly to Chicago on the British direct route to the West Coast. It also secured rights to Commonwealth and Colonial territories in the Eastern Caribbean, on a trunk route through New York. This was (a) 3 (b) in the Exchange of Notes.
The United Kingdom also gained local route rights in the Caribbean and the Far East, as was shown in (a) 12 and (a) 13. In return, if one can talk about balancing things in this way, the United States was granted additional routes to Hong Kong through Europe and across the Pacific. Its routes in the Caribbean and the Bahamas and Bermuda were also extended together with additional flexibility on routes to Europe, some of them, as the hon. Member quite rightly stressed, all-cargo services. This is a development which we in the Board of Trade must particularly bear in mind. All of these additions and changes give further scope to airlines of both countries and will considerably help the United Kingdom's overseas territories to enjoy improved services.
The hon. Member mentioned in his speech, as he has mentioned in correspondence with my hon. Friends at the Commonwealth Office and the Ministry

of Aviation, his particular wish to see British airline services developed via Bermuda, across to the Caribbean and down to South America. As the hon. Member rightly said, services not calling at points in United States territory do not need to be negotiated in this United Kingdom Agreement with the United States. A service across the Atlantic, for instance, via Bermuda to the Bahamas and to non-United States islands in the Caribbean and to South America is right outside the scope of this Agreement.
In so far as such a service or services—the hon. Member mentioned feeder lines coming in as well—go to other countries, that is to countries other than the United States, such service or services depend on international rights from those countries. Any new service of a British airline, not covered by its existing licence from the British Air Transport Licensing Board would have to be the subject of an application by that airline to the Board. I am in a difficulty, because any such application, I understand, could be the subject of an appeal to the Minister, in a quasi-judicial capacity, so that the hon. Member will agree that it would not be appropriate for me to comment—even if I had all of the information on which I could comment—on the prospects of whether such an application would be successful if one was made.
I understand that so far no application for a new regular scheduled services open to the public has been made by a British independent operator, for a route across to the Caribbean and beyond, to South America. I know that the hon. Member has corresponded with my hon. Friends in the Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Aviation on some of these route matters, which are of interest to the territories overseas in the Caribbean area. I can assure the hon. Member that we shall be pleased to pursue these proposals in greater detail than is possible in a debate of this kind.
My hon. Friend, the Minister of State will be writing to the hon. Member so that these matters can be followed up. These proposals which has he made do not call for any alteration or revision of the United Kingdom-United States routes achieved in the negotiations this year. I think that he would agree that in spite of further proposals that he wants us to make, the revision in this new Agreement


represents a major advance in the interest of air travel and of British aviation. I agree with him that the extension of United Kingdom routes in this way is bound to help to extend the use of British aircraft and, consequently, make a contribution to the prosperity of our aircraft industry.
The hon. Gentleman raised some specific points and, first, I would say a word on route 11 to Miami. I understand that B.O.A.C. is already flying to Miami at present on an international through connecting route, but not with Miami as a destination. There is a domestic route, from London to Nassau, to which the international route Nassau-Miami is added, but the direct route will come into operation, I understand, in 1970. He also asked why paragraphs (a) and (b) of section IV of the Annex to the Bermuda Agreement have been deleted, and what are the results of that deletion. The answer to that is that these two paragraphs allowed the parties to the Agreement to add any additional intermediate points which they wished on the negotiated route. But this sort of permissive arrangement has never really worked, nor been put into full operation, and both countries have agreed that from now on the intermediate points should be clearly stated, and be laid down in the Agreement. That is what has been done, and so the original two paragraphs have been deleted.
The hon. Member also asked what the word "foreign" means in paragraph 1(c) of the Agreement, and suggested, I think, that it referred to anywhere outside the United Kingdom. In fact, it is the other way round. This Note is from Her Majesty's Ambassador to the United States administration, and it means, therefore, that "foreign" applies to any country outside the United States. In other words, to paraphrase the Note, there shall be no objection to the issue of non-United States carrier permits to the designated United Kingdom carriers, allowing them to substitute Los Angeles for San Francisco and San Francisco for Los Angeles within the limits laid down.
There are two other questions. First, on the matter of independents, this is, as he himself suggested, something for British licensing and British policy, and not for the United Kingdom-United States Agree-

ment as such. There are independent flights operated by British United to the east coast of South America, and I think the hon. Gentleman asks that, in working out the benefits of this Agreement, consideration should be given to the independent airlines which want to operate such routes. Of course, I am speaking at the moment for the Minister who, in his quasi-judicial capacity would have to pronounce on appeals on any applications which might come forward. I think that I have answered most of the points raised, and hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that I have told him all I can.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: I will not detain the House for more than a few moments, but should like to comment briefly on some of the points which have been raised. I am sure that my hon. Friends would like to thank and congratulate the Minister of State for having taken on this task at such short notice. We appreciate the way in which he has grappled with such a complicated subject in such a short time and given such informative answers. We understand the reason for the absence of his hon. Friend the Minister of State who is now dealing with these affairs—again because of the short notice involved.
We agree that this new Agreement with the United States is a very important one, and is of advantage to this country. The objectives which we have achieved—an international trunk service across the Pacific; new rights within the United States, and new rights in the Eastern Caribbean when operating through New York—provide very important new opportunities for British airlines. In return, the United States have themselves obtained new rights—and that is fair enough. One of the main objects of my hon. Friends is that since the United States are very vigorous and enterprising competitors who will almost certainly take full advantage of their new rights, this country should do the same. Hence the importance of the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) made of the full development of the feeder services, as well as the main rights, in the Caribbean area, and also of making quite sure that while we use these new rights to give full advantage to B.O.A.C.—our major international flag carrier in airline operations—we should


not allow B.O.A.C.'s inability to take advantage of these rights to prevent other British airlines from doing so.
When we say we want this to be a genuine Anglo-United States Agreement, and not simply a B.O.A.C.-United States Agreement, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not expressing the slightest prejudice against B.O.A.C., or wishing the Corporation to be held back in any way. We are saying that if, as might happen, B.O.A.C., for economic or other reasons, felt unable to take up some rights which we have gained and which independents would be prepared to take up, we hope that the Government would make sure that our independent airlines got a fair chance to do so, and that there would not be any dog-in-the-manger business of saying that, because B.O.A.C. could not take up the rights, nobody else should be allowed to.
That brings me to the general point with which my hon. Friend opened his remarks. It is a matter of history that communications, and leadership in communications—whatever form they may take—are vital in Britain's interest. The account given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham of what was said to him during the war by some of his American colleagues, although no doubt said in the friendliest spirit, had some truth in it. It is not possible for Britain to dominate the world communications in the way she may have done in the past, but it is possible, if we are on our toes and determined to take advantage of every opportunity, to see that we maintain a leading part, because this is not only important in itself; by leading to the use of British aircraft, thereby giving us a broader base on which to sustain a viable and advanced technological British aircraft industry, we are also contributing to the technological and general economic strength of this country.
We beg the Government to be expansive in this field and to make sure, in one way or another, that Britain uses to the full the rights she has gained under the Agreement. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the Prayer we moved on Friday, we are not enamoured of the breaking-up of the Ministry of Aviation at this juncture, whatever may be the long-term advantages, but perhaps in this one field there may be some advantage in these responsibilities coming to the Board

of Trade, and we may be compensated in this one respect for what we believe, overall, to be a pity at present. There would be advantage in getting from the Board of Trade a stronger and more worldwide appreciation of the commercial possibilities of airline operation and the benefit of its great experience in tough international negotiations. If it can take hold of these powers and make use of these rights for Britain we shall give it every support, because it will be doing a great service for Britain.

Mr. Darling: With permission, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak. He may speak again only if the House gives him leave.

Mr. Darling: With leave of the House, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about my trying to study this matter quickly. His views will be drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY ESTABLISHMENT, BRACKNELL

12.56 a.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I am obliged for the opportunity to raise a matter of some concern to many of my constituents—the proposed closure of the Atomic Energy Authority's establishment at Bracknell in my constituency and its withdrawal to the "parent" body at Harwell. I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) for attending at the god-forsaken hour of one o'clock in the morning, when most apart from ourselves are properly in bed. The hon. Gentleman may take comfort from the fact that the papers which I have in my hand are not my speech but the correspondence which I have had with him and others about this subject.
This establishment employs about 150 people. It consists of an engineering unit and an electronics unit controlled from the "parent" body at Harwell. It was set up in 1956 to provide additional engineering capacity and is now carrying


out £150,000-worth of charged work anually and is probably handling about £600,000-worth of electronic equipment, much of it in the 2,000 series.
The hon. Gentleman's case will probably be that, the Authority having consolidated its civil reactor programme, it has entered a phase of what he has called a "modest contraction", whatever that may mean; that, in the Authority's view, when what are described as "small out-stations" cease to be economic they should be closed, and that this is a continuing process, that it is the Authority's view that, at Bracknell, there will first of all be substantial savings in rent, rates, management, administration and so on and that the proposed integration will improve efficiency.
I am aware that the hon. Gentleman's powers in this matter are limited by the Atomic Energy Authority Act of 1954, but his Minister has general overall responsibility. On both grounds, the arguments are sufficiently faulty for him to intervene and have the matter looked at again. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may say fairly that he is able to report that both the staff side of the National Whitley Council and the trade unions have withdrawn their objection to the proposed closure.
I have looked into this matter very carefully and in the last three days I have taken careful advice. I am assured that no one actually working at Bracknell is represented directly on these bodies. I am categorically assured that the withdrawal of those objections most emphatically does not carry with it the support of those working at Bracknell. From what I am able to ascertain, there has been a minimum of consultation between the national level and the local level at Bracknell. I therefore very much hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not rest a substantial part of his case on this, because I assure him that feelings at Bracknell are very strong indeed—and I have satisfied myself very carefully about this from both sides at the plant.
Let us take the argument which the hon. Member will attempt to put of improved efficiency. My case in reply is that since 1956 the work of particularly the electronics division has changed

very remarkably indeed. They are now undertaking, for example, large-scale kitting for production contracts. They are undertaking the manufacture and design of design approval contracts. They are undertaking acceptance testing of equipment made on copy contracts. Since 1956, these have all been devloped as major procedures. All have shown a steady increase since the plant was first started in Bracknell.
If one takes the mechanical engineering workshops, in the early years it was a research group only. That was how it started about 1956. It now has major commitments from Winfrith, from Alder-maston, from the Science Research Coun-cill and so on. Thirdly, the graphite shop has a very heavy load for the Dragon project. I will be brief because of the hour of the night, but I have only to take the successful tendering for the charging of the Dragon reactor. I am advised that there are only two other places in the United Kingdom where this graphite metal machining can be undertaken. I am advised—can the Minister comment on this?—that if that particular establishment at Bracknell is closed, this important contract is likely to go abroad, which would be a very retrograde step indeed.
Finally, let me draw the hon. Member's attention, as I have in correspondence, to the remarkable 2,000 series on the electronics side. My anxiety in relation to this contract is that the project depends very substantially on skilled staff. I draw attention to the position at Harwell. For example, in the recent past there were two advertisements from Harwell on a national scale in the Daily Mirror. There were 1,400 replies to that advertisement and yet out of that large number fewer than two dozen serious recruits were obtained. Furthermore, Harwell at the moment—and for some time past—sends supporting workers from Harwell to Bracknell. Bracknell is working on a full overtime basis. Harwell is still working on a very restricted overtime basis. Harwell is still bedevilled by demarcation disputes, and there is no demarcation dispute of any kind at Bracknell. There has been no internal dispute at Bracknell since that unit started. Nobody who has dealings, as I have had, with members of the staff side, as with members of the other side, could fail to be impressed with the


spirit at Bracknell and the tremendous loyalty to the plant.
However, none of this applies in anything like the same way at Harwell. I appreciate that the Minister will reply, "That is fair enough", but I hope he will also say, as I believe to be the case, that the efficiency of Bracknell has never been questioned, that it is regarded highly by all concerned and that the spirit of the establishment is very high indeed. He will probably also say, "This can surely be reproduced at Harwell because the Authority will give every help and inducement for those concerned to move". But there is a very human reason why this will not be so, a reason which should appeal to the hon. Gentleman. At Bracknell those concerned—who, incidentally, moved themselves, their wives and families—are tenants of the New Town Corporation. If they move to Harwell, they will become tenants of tied houses; and there is all the difference in the world between being a tenant of a reputable new town corporation and a tied tenant at Harwell. I assure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that this is something about which those concerned feel very deeply, particularly against the background of the so-called "modest contraction" of which the Government have already spoken.
So much for the efficiency argument. Coming to the financial implications, it is said, first, that in money terms, the saving will be about £50,000 a year. With respect, this amount is open to question. For example, it includes a figure of £12,000 a year for depreciation. But equipment transferred from Bracknell to Harwell will continue to depreciate and one therefore cannot adduce an argument, however good it may be, which seeks to bring in depreciation on one side of the balance sheet and then takes no notice of it on the other.
It is then said that the cost of the move would be £70,000. However, I am advised that the original estimate for the conversion of the building for the electronics section at Harwell was itself £70,000. Admittedly that has been reduced, as a result of local protests, to £50,000, but the figures I have so far been given include no estimate of the work of extraction and washing facilities for graphite which will be necessary. I hope I have shown that there are enough

questions raised—on the efficiency and financial arguments—for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say that this is a matter which he should take urgently into account, despite the restrictions on his right hon. Friend's powers as originally imposed by Parliament.
Although not directly concerned with the Minister of Technology, I have given notice that I would raise a question concerning the new town as such. This is a matter for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who is particularly associated with, and responsible for, new towns and whose work in that respect is much regarded. It must be made quite clear that for a Government Department or a Government unit to be withdrawn from a Government overspill new town introduces a new and very serious element into the administration of new towns, and I would ask directly: has the Joint Parliamentary Secretary been able to find any other example of any Government or quasi-Government unit being withdrawn from an overspill new town?
These new towns are very delicate plants, and one Government Department has a duty to another before withdrawal of this kind takes place. I know that "only" 150 people are involved, and I know that this does not approach some of the crises through which Bracknell has recently passed and which are not germane to this debate, but the principle is important, and we should look at it with some care.
That is my case. The two legs of the Minister's argument are efficiency and economy. I genuinely believe that the Authority is making a faulty judgment on both the efficiency and the financial sides. I hope that I have said enough to convince the hon. Gentleman that both his arguments may be weak. I hope that as a result of this short debate, which is of great importance to those concerned, and which will be transmitted there first thing in the morning, the hon. Gentleman will feel that enough has been said for him to intervene in a ministerial capacity.
I have great hopes of his Minister. It so happens that a longer time ago than I now like to remember the Minister of Technology and I were at school together, and I was well aware of his persuasive powers when, at the age of 13, he converted me to being a pledged member of


the Labour Party. Happily, maturity came to me earlier than it did to him. By a curious twist of fate we used to go to meetings at his distinguished father's home, on the site of which the graceful building of the Ministry of Technology now stands. Little did we then think of the heights to which the Minister of Technology would rise, both ministerially and achitecturally.
I hope that as a result of lengthy discussions, during which he has shown his typical forebearing courtesy, the hon. Gentleman will accept the argument that in this case a wrong decision has been taken.

1.13 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. EdmundDell): I would first like to thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) for his courtesy in giving me forewarning of certain points he has raised, and also for the very moderate and persuasive way in which he has put his case. The Ministry of Technology and, I am sure, the Atomic Energy Authority are well aware of the importance of this decision to those concerned at Bracknell, and I must start, as he did, by emphasising the position of the Minister in this matter.
Under the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, the Minister cannot intervene in matters of detail unless there is an over-riding national interest, so that it is necessary before asking the Minister to intervene to show that there is an overriding national interest. It would then be necessary to persuade the Minister, if that were the case, that the Atomic Energy Authority's decision was wrong. Otherwise, it would obviously be entirely wrong for the Minister by detailed interference to deprive the Authority of its appropriate responsibility for the economic running of the Authority. As a result of the hon. Member's letters and discussions, I have examined the case over a considerable period, and I must say at once that I believe that there is no case to be made against the Authority's judgment in the matter and that, consequently, there is certainly no case of over-riding national interest.
I told the hon. Member in a letter which I wrote to him on, I believe, 6th May—he referred to it in passing tonight

—that the Atomic Energy Authority is now in a phase of contraction because its civil reactor programme has been consolidated. This contraction is likely to go on and this particular closure is not the only closure which has taken place. Other closures have taken place for similar reasons of economy.
What are the reasons which have operated at Bracknell? I say, first, in response to what the hon. Member said perfectly correctly, that no one questions the excellent spirit which has been shown at Bracknell. No one questions the efficiency of the people working at Bracknell, and it is the desire of the Atomic Energy Authority that people working at Bracknell shall go to Harwell. Nevertheless, there seem substantial reasons for the action which the Atomic Energy Authority has taken. First, the savings. The hon. Member referred to the figures which the Atomic Energy Authority says will be saved. On the estimate of the A.E.A. they certainly will be in excess of £40,000.
The hon. Member referred to one figure which went to make up the £50,000, of which he was at one time told. This was the figure of £12,000 for depreciation. This figure, if removed from the calculation, would still leave savings of the order of £40,000. The A.E.A., as a result of certain decisions regarding removal of equipment from Bracknell to Harwell in its current estimates, has reduced the £12,000 to £5,000, and this will still leave savings in excess of £40,000. Then there is the cost of the move. The hon. Member mentioned the correct figure, £70,000 which is the A.E.A. estimate, but it must be remembered that in calculating the cost the A.E.A. is taking credit for certain equipment which will be saved and this is part of the £70,000.
I have not been able to fault the figures which the A.E.A. has given to me, I therefore have to accept that there is likely to be savings of £40,000 as against the cost of moving, £70,000. The move will begin to show savings in the second year. The hon. Member very properly dwelt on the question of efficiency of operation. It is certainly the A.E.A. case that there will be increased efficiency as a result of this move because of the integration of the Bracknell workshops and


electronic sections into the parent organisation at Harwell. It will reduce problems of communcation which carry with them certain costs.
The problem of efficiency is important in relation to a matter which the hon. Member mentioned—the 2,000 series of advanced electronic instruments. The A.E.A. and the Harwell Electronic Division are launching these instruments on the international market. It is of the highest importance that the Authority should be able to do so competitively and that it should not have to accept unnecessary costs in the operation of this activity.
Another reason for this move is that the conditions which led to the establishment at Bracknell in the first place no longer apply. When the factory was established at Bracknell there was no space available at Harwell; now there is. When it was established, there was great difficulty in recruiting people for Harwell and Bracknell gave an opportunity to recruit them. Now the A.E.A. is finding that the problems at Bracknell are no less than those at Harwell. It says that the problem of recruitment will in no way be worsened by this move.
I should like to emphasise a point which I hope will be of importance to those working in this factory, that concerning the Atomic Energy Authority there need be no redundancy. Everyone working at Bracknell has been offered a job at Harwell if they wish to take it. If they do not wish to take it I am advised that there should be no difficulty in their obtaining suitable alternative employment at Bracknell.
In the course of correspondence, the hon. Gentleman raised points regarding the 2,000 series of advanced electronic instruments and about work which was being placed with Premier Precision Ltd. He did not raise the latter point this morning, but as he has raised it in correspondence perhaps I can say that no work that can be placed with the Bracknell workshops is going to Premier Precision Ltd., which is a highly specialised firm engaged on the production of high-precision mechanical components. It holds certain contracts from the Authority, not from Harwell, but these are not of a kind which could be undertaken at Bracknell.
With regard to the other point about the 2,000 series, and the rôle of Bracknell here in the procurement of specialist components and technical advice and assistance, it is the view of the A.E.A. that the development of this important work will in no way be harmed but in the long run will benefit by the consolidation of this work at Harwell.
There is a further important point which the hon. Gentleman raised towards the end of his speech, and that is what will the effect be on Bracknell? He asked me the direct question whether there was any other case of a Government establishment moving from a London new town. I have asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and he has told me that he knows of no other case.
Nevertheless, this is not a reason for not taking this action if the action is justified in itself. I must say that this is a relatively small thing as compared, for example, with another case which the hon. Gentleman raised some few months ago on which he had assistance from the Government, who took very vigorous action which has, I believe, produced a very satisfactory solution. There we were dealing with a company with 1,000 employees in Bracknell. In this case it is 150. Although it is important it is a consideration which has to be put against another, that of economy of operation of the A.E.A.
Moreover, I am now able to say with regard to the factory itself that the Bracknell Development Corporation has decided not to object to an application by the Ministry of Public Building and Works on behalf of the Meteorological Office; in other words, the Meteorological Office is going to take over the factory from the A.E.A.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to negotiations with the staff, and he said that in his view these negotiations were inadequate. The fact of the matter as reported to me, and I have here the particular statement, is that the A.E.A. issued notice to the staff on 25th January this year of a move which it is planned should take place by mid-1967, so I do not think it could be said that adequate notice was not given. There has been joint consultation and both the staff side of the Whitley Council and the General Purposes


Committee of the National Joint Industrial Council have informed the Authority that so far as they are concerned the move can go ahead.
The hon. Gentleman said that no one working at Bracknell was directly represented on these bodies, and that the people at Bracknell did not accept the judgment the staff side and the General Purposes Committee made about this issue. But I put it to him that it is of some consequence that these bodies which do represent the people of Bracknell—even though they have no direct representatives on them—have come to this decision in the light of the arguments which have been presented to them.
As I said to start with, we in the Ministry of Technology have not taken this matter lightly, although from the beginning we have been confronted with the fact that our powers were limited and we could intervene only if there was a clear overriding national interest and if we were persuaded by the case made by the hon. Member. After devoting time to the matter, after examining the figures and listening to the case both of the Atomic Energy Authority and of the hon. Member, I have been persuaded that there is no reason which would justify the Minister to intervene and that the arguments presented by the Authority are well founded. This being the case, my right hon. Friend has decided that he cannot intervene.

SIERRA LEONE (EXPULSION OF MR. DAVID LOSHAK)

1.26 a.m.

Mr. James Allason: I wish tonight to inform the House of the situation in which my constituent, Mr. David Loshak, found himself during his happily brief visit to Sierra Leone. Mr. Loshak is a journalist employed by the Daily Telegraph and he tells me that in that employment he is completely free to express his own views and is not tied to the views of the newspaper. He is neither pro-African nor anti-African. He tries to be objective in reporting what he sees.
It so happened that Mr. Loshak was expelled from Nigeria recently for undisclosed reasons. As we know, there has since been a change of government in Nigeria. He went to Sierra Leone not

with the object of reporting the situation there but of using it as a stepping stone to go on to Guinea. He found difficulty in getting his visas for Guinea and so, whilst he was waiting in Sierra Leone, he sent two articles to the Daily Telegraph.
The first of those articles appeared on 11th July with quotations from the Opposition Press and, in particular, stating that there was an intention by the Government of Sierra Leone to arrest Dr. Easmon, who is a critic of the Government. All the basis of that article was taken from the Opposition Press which was circulating in Sierra Leone. The second article appeared on 13th July and dealt with the economic situation of Sierra Leone. It alleged mismanagement and misuse of resources. Mr. Loshak believes that it was this which gave the greatest distress to the Sierra Leone Government, because it was at a time when substantial British aid was under consideration. However, the nominal offence that he committed was in referring to the intention to arrest Dr. Easmon.
We ought to try to get this matter in perspective and to consider what would happen to a journalist in this country representing a foreign newspaper who reported that a prominent critic of the Government was likely to be arrested. It is highly unlikely that even the present Government would take any very serious steps. However, as we shall see, the steps which were taken in the case of Mr. Loshak were serious.
On the day that the article of 13th July apeared, application was made to a magistrate for a search warrant on the ground that the police believed that Mr. Loshak was in possession of illicit diamonds. The search warrant was granted and the police searched Mr. Loshak in his room. Naturally, they did not find any diamonds, but they took an extremely keen interest in his papers, which were confiscated, and the following day an expulsion order was made against him.
On the basis of that order, he could be detained indefinitely until he was expelled, and he was duly detained on that day, 14th July. He spent six days in custody, five of them on the basis of the expulsion order and not for any offence. He should still have been treated as an innocent man, although subject to deportation.
For the three days 14th-16th July he was kept for 12 hours daily confined in a small, bare office of the Freetown Criminal Investigation Department, and on those two nights he was locked in a small and very hot room in a suburban police station. He slept on a completely bare camp bed, with no bed clothes and no protection against mosquitoes, which included malarial mosquitoes. On 17th July, he was at last given access to open air, and he then received a better bedroom. He got a room with a fan, and access to a bathroom. This was the situation when my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) raised the matter in the House on 18th July.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs announced:
He is … being well treated".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1966; Vol. 732 c. 37.]
If this is good treatment, I do not know what bad treatment would be in the opinion of the Secretary of State.
On that same day he was charged with eight offences of making false statements and of sedition and he was also, at last, allowed to contact his wife. On 19th July he was released on bail. Difficulties had been placed in the way of the High Commission official who visited him daily, especially on the first day of his visits.
The six charges of sedition concerned publishing the first article on Sierra Leone, which consisted of handing the message in to the cable office to be dispatched to London. That was the only form of publishing that took place in Sierra Leone. Nevertheless, it was sufficient to form the basis of the charges.
He was tried and acquitted on four lesser charges, convicted on two counts, for which he was cautioned and discharged, and convicted on two other counts, for which he was fined £100. I am grateful for that, at least, because that is a fairly derisory penalty for the offence of sedition. The fine has been paid, and he has now returned to this country.
I want to comment not on the legal aspects but on the circumstances of the search, the bogus way in which the search warrant was obtained and the conditions of his custody, which are highly unsatisfactory. The House is entitled to an

explanation why the Secretary of State should find this sort of treatment satisfactory. I hope that we shall hear from the hon. Lady that the strongest possible protest has been made to the Government of Sierra Leone about this very unsatisfactory case.

1.35 a.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: Even at 1.30 in the morning, the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) for raising this matter. It is clear from what he said that Mr. Loshak was treated in a harsh and uncivilised way.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations gave a rather surprising reply when I first raised the matter with him by Private Notice Question on 18th July. He said that Mr. Loshak was being "well treated". I quite understand that he is bound to act upon information which he has received, but my information—I have seen Mr. Loshak—is that Mr. Loshak certainly did not tell the British representative who saw him that he was being well treated. I appreciate that the message probably passed through many hands, but the right hon. Gentleman might do well to find out how or why that information was given, through him, to the House.
I am puzzled also to understand why the right hon. Gentleman gave what seemed to me to be an almost callous answer. It is normal in such a case—one takes it to be common form in the House, I think—for a Minister to say something to the effect that the House will feel sympathy for the gentleman concerned or sympathy with his wife and family in their anxiety. No such utterance came from the right hon. Gentleman, which was a pity. I wonder whether he knew, for example, that Mr. Loshak had not been able to correspond with his wife for four days although his wife knew that he was in prison, and that his wife's letter to him was not handed to him. All the circumstances seem to me to contract what the right hon. Gentleman said.
I come now to the trial itself. I say at once that I think that the judge sought, in circumstances of great difficulty, to be completely fair. But it is relevant to describe briefly the legal situation in


Sierra Leone. The chief justice has already been dismissed by the Prime Minister. There was a vacancy for a chief justice, and I understand that there is a vacancy now. In these circumstances, the Prime Minister himself came down to the court—a surprising act for a Prime Minister—and elected personally to give evidence. The Sierra Leone Opposition allege that he did this in order to signal to the judge what sort of verdict he required.
I shall not comment on that, but I wish to direct attention to the nature of the Prime Minister's evidence. Mr. Loshak's article—here I quote from the Daily Telegraph—read as follows:
Issue of a warrant for the arrest of Dr. Easman, a leading Opposition figure, has high-lighted a political dilemma facing the Sierra Leone Government. With a general election approaching, the uninhibited flow of criticism is increasingly embarrassing to the Government.
That is what Mr. Loshak reported. The Prime Minister, upon oath, told the court that no such warrant had been discussed. I must tell the House that, although that evidence was given upon oath by the Prime Minister, my information is that it was false. A warrant for the arrest of Dr. Easman was issued. It was discussed by Ministers. It was signed by the acting chief justice Mr. Christopher Cole, although, in view of the political situation which then supervened, that warrant was not served. That is not merely my opinion. It is the opinion of the entire Bar of Sierra Leone.
I come next to the Attorney-General, who prosecuted Mr. Loshak. He has not been fortunate in his legal career. He had been disbarred for 18 months for misappropriation of his clients' money, though he was reprieved on a technicality. He is currently, at this very time, under censure by the Bar Council of Sierra Leone for persecution and vendettas against political opponents, the reason being that he has prosecuted the same man again and again on charges of sedition, and, if there is an acquittal, he simply enters a new indictment.
The Attorney-General himself had to answer manslaughter charges, and has had the case transferred to an up-country court. During the case against Mr. Loshak, he acted as a bully—I suggest as a vindictive bully—and that again

is not merely an expression of opinion from me, because I have been to some care to find out what happened. The judge himself, speaking to the Attorney-General of his own Government in the presence of the Prime Minister, said that his conduct "savoured of persecution." The eminent Q.C. who went out to defend Mr. Loshak expressed similar views.
Then one comes to the verdict. That, as my hon. Friend described to some extent, was "not guilty" of publishing a false statement likely to cause fear and alarm, but guilty of sedition by publishing the same statement. That is a verdict which, I suggest, is apparent nonsense.
If one looks at the case itself, one finds that Mr. Loshak was never even accused of doing anything at all in Sierra Leone itself. How one can cause public disaffection when one has not written a word which was published in Sierra Leone would defeat the intelligence or curiosity of any normal person. All that he did was to send a telegram to London. Whatever he may have said in it, one would have thought, could not sustain the charge of sedition in Sierra Leone. I suggest that his imprisonment and the conditions under which he was imprisoned were uncivilised. The attiture of the Sierra Leone Government was inexcusable, and the verdict was a farce.
Then one comes to the whole nub of this small debate: why is this important? The security of the person of any individual is important, but there is more to it than that. The point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is that, within the last 18 months, no fewer than 10 correspondents of British newspapers in one place or another within the Afro-Asian bloc have either been deported or imprisoned, as happened in the case of Mr. Loshak. In the preceding 18 months, the score was extremely small. Incidentally, my figure is derived from information supplied to me by the Commonwealth Office. In other words, a new trend is setting in, and that trend can have but one objective. It is to silence the British Press. Broadly, I think that it can be said that British reporting is fair. The aim seems to be to prevent the House having the information that it ought to have. From conversations which I have had with journalists who have served in African


States, it is clear that they are already being affected. They find that they cannot carry on their work properly. They say, "If I am to report at all, I must go to the country, leave the country, and send home my report only after I have left it."
These are trends far beyond the case of Mr. Loshak itself. Only the Commonwealth Office itself, in its dealings with those countries, can bring home to them the seriousness of what they do. If such countries think that this House or the country will be influenced by the fact that unfair and undue pressure or intimidation is to be exercised upon our journalists, they must understand that that is an idea which is wholly misconceived.
We are all conscious—and nowhere more than in the Commonwealth Office—of the evil of racial discrimination, and I share that view. But I put it to the Minister of State that if the Government were to expect lower standards of African States than they would demand of European States, that would be patronising and offensive to the African himself. We cannot, for the sake of the safety of the British subjects concerned, submit to that kind of discrimination. One of the first duties of Her Majesty's Government of any complexion is to ensure the freedom of the persons of British subjects travelling abroad, and no political motive ought to interfere with that duty. When I say that, I express not only my own view but the view of the whole House of Commons traditionally expressed through many generations.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. James Dickens: I rise basically for three reasons. First, I believe it important to express the view of the Government back benches on the deep, underlying principles affecting this sort of incident; secondly, I have known Mr. Loshak personally for 14 years; thirdly, I believe there is a case for making a plea for a wider understanding of the current conditions of Africa by visiting Western journalists.
Many of us who share the concept of a free and independent Africa are none the less very deeply disturbed about some current tendencies in that con-

tinent. The case of Mr. Loshak is an example. He is, in my view, an honest and reliable journalist who has built up a sound reputation for authentic reporting.
When he was in Sierra Leone en route—abortively, as it happened—for Guinea to interview ex-President Nkrumah of Ghana, he found that, in Sierra Leone, he was being prevented, in effect, from doing his job as a journalist—namely, from sending back to the readers of the Daily Telegraph the reports he had prepared on the political and economic situation there as honestly and as objectively as he could.
Mr. Loshak was arrested and charged with sedition, and the sedition involved was, I understand, simply filing a cable—which was not fully printed in the Daily Telegraph by the way, early in July. There was no serious endeavour to prove against him a case to the effect that the Daily Telegraph either had remarkable circulation in West Africa or that West African newspapers were reprinting matter from it against the interests of Sir Albert Margai and the Sierra Leone People's Party.
Mr. Loshak came to the view that Sir Albert Margai and his friends were busy trying to establish a single party dictatorship. He was right to make this report to the readers of the Daily Telegraph. It was his duty to do so. It is important that those of us on these benches should make it clear, on occasions like this, that liberty is indivisible, that we stand for freedom of expression everywhere and that this includes West Africa in just the same way as it includes Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, North and South Vietnam and elsewhere.
So the feeling the House expresses on this case is not at all confined to Right-wing Conservatives on the benches opposite. I refer here to Motion No. 143 which appeared on the Order Paper on 18th July.

This Motion contains a most unfortunate reference to the fact that Sierra Leone is in receipt of economic aid from this country. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) and his hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) made no reference to this. It


is just as well, because I took the opportunity earlier tonight to speak to Mr. Loshak about this and he has given me his authority to make it clear that he would deplore any endeavour to work up a campaign, either in this Chamber or in the country, against African States, such as Sierra Leone on the grounds that they were receiving economic assistance from this country, but acted in an autocratic way towards British journalists. We regard this as irrelevant. I am very glad that this insinuation, which was explicitly contained in Motion 143 has not been repeated in this Chamber tonight.

It would be disastrous if we sought to adhere to a policy toward African States which said that, because they did not act in accordance with our particular wishes from time to time, especially in what they do to our journalists or other British residents, we would reconsider our economic assistance to them. The time has now come for Great Britain and other western nations to face the fact that we have not been making adequate contributions to these countries.

I am fully aware that this country faces enormous economic problems, but I am dissatisfied with our contributions to Sierra Leone and other developing countries. At present we devote ·7 of 1 per cent. of our gross national product to economic assistance. Yet the gap between industrial and developing nations is widening year by year. In 1965 the developing countries were only able to raise their total food production by 1 per cent.—rather less than half the increase in population. Last year 200 million people in developing countries, most of them in Africa, almost certainly ate less than in 1964 and the position in 1966 will almost certainly be worse. It would be very foolish to reduce aid to any country with whom we happen to have had a difference of opinion, on their attitude towards visiting British journalists, or if we were to attach any consideration of this nature to aid.

It is interesting and significant that hon. Gentlemen opposite raise a question like this which, on its merits, is an important case, yet we never hear from any of them any concern expressed about the deportation of journalists from Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Evelyn King: What the hon. Gentleman says is quite false, because I have condemned, in this House only a week ago the deportation of journalists from Rhodesia.

Mr. Dickens: I was unaware of that and I unreservedly withdraw my imputation so far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned. He is very much an exception on the opposite benches—[Interruption.]—excluding the Parliamentary Liberal Party, who represent another honourable exception. I pay tribute to the distinguished record of the Parliamentary Liberal Party in this respect. The vast majority of Opposition Members have made no protest whatever about the fact that Southern Rhodesia has the highest rate of expulsion of journalists of any African country and continues to carry out this policy.
The third reason is to make a plea for a wider and more sympathetic understanding of the turmoil which is embroiling Africa. We all know that there have been revolutions in recent months in no fewer than seven African States; in Nigeria, the Sudan, Ghana, Buganda, Upper Volta, Algeria and the Congo.
The reason for this turmoil is complex and it would indeed be a bold person who would try to give an answer at this hour of the morning. But these developments in Africa are the first reactions after a decade of independence following five centuries of European influence and control, and we have to look at Africa sympatheticaly and against such a background. The situation is confusing and bewildering not only to people in the West, but also to Marxists from the Soviet Union and from China. Africa is not fitting into the preconceived patterns we held prior to the granting of independence.
We are seeing a reaffirmation of African culture by some of the territories now independent after five hundred years of European influence. It must be remembered that the Africans, unlike other former colonial subjects, never disintegrated as a social unit as, for example, have the American Indians or the Australian Aborigines. To newspapers in Britain, especially those which support the Conservative cause, I say take cognisance of the fact that there are very deep and profound attitudes in Africa


today towards the redevelopment of African society on a new and higher level than it has known hitherto.
Mr. Loshak, in articles on his return to this country, has made one or two references to this climate of opinion in West Africa, and despite his earlier remarks about tendencies towards single-party government in African States, he has stated in an article which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph of 31st July,
Political freedom has existed since independence in 1961 and exists still.
One difficulty is the fact that there is a lack of the Parliamentary system of government as we know it because of an absence of the economic base which supports that system in Britain. There is in Sierra Leone the problem of the Government going to a forthcoming election, facing an Opposition party with which the differences are acute. My hon. Friend cannot tonight comment on the wider implications, but I wonder if she could state what are her reactions to Mr. Loshak's article of 31st July? He stated there, categorically, that
… every request, for whatever minor comfort, for permission to contact my wife in England, or to go out for a breath of fresh air, even for permission to speak to the British High Commission's representative, was baulked by likeable but little men …".
Did our High Commission office in Sierra Leone make efforts to speak to Mr. Loshak to see that his interests were being adequately looked after?
Other matters have been referred to on which I want to touch briefly. There is some ground for hope in Sierra Leone. The fact that the judge imposed only a nominal fine is a matter of great significance, as are also the tremendous demonstrations after the trial of popular feeling and support for Mr. Loshak. In his more recent article in the Daily Telegraph, of 1st August, Mr. Loshak summarises his analysis of the trial as showing to the political opposition in Sierra Leone that the Government of Sir Albert Margai was determined to pursue its critics to the bitter end. It would be only right and proper for me to say—and I address my remarks to the Government of Sierra Leone—that many hon. Members on this side of the House are deeply concerned about the current antidemocratic trends in Sierra Leone.
We are sympathetic about the problems that that country faces and we wish to

help. We hope that those with latent trends to authoritarian Government will recognise that a healthy Parliamentary opposition is essential to the political democracy of Sierra Leone, and that oppositions can be troublesome but are inevitable and worth while and necessary if they are to maintain any semblance of Parliamentary or political democracy.

2.02 a.m.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Judith Hart): I am glad that this issue has been raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) tonight because it is an issue that it is right for the House of Commons, with its traditions, to discuss. First, I want to put on record the facts; secondly, to state the position of the Government, and thirdly, to try to state the matter against some of the wider perspectives, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) has been seeking to do. I want to comment separately on the quite extraordinary and astonishing speech of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King).
I accept that Mr. Loshak has sought to be neither pro-African nor anti-African. I accept that he has a reputation as a journalist of great skill and integrity. He was convicted under the Public Order Act of Sierra Leone because he wrote a cable—and to that extent writing a cable, as in our own libel laws, constitutes publishing—containing the statement that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of the leading Opposition figure, Mr. Easmon. It has not been contested that the cable that he sought to send to the Daily Telegraph contained this statement, nor is it contested that the statement proved to be unsubstantiated.
The pity of it, in my opinion, is that though it may have been written in the best of beliefs that the sources from which Mr. Loshak had got it were accurate, it had not been checked with Government sources and was, in fact, quite unsubstantiated. We have to bear in mind the fact that Mr. Loshak, while extremely experienced in other African countries, had not been very long in Sierra Leone, and no doubt had not had the time that he would normally have taken to distinguish between his reliable contacts and his less reliable ones.
However, I have no doubt that at that moment Mr. Loshak was sure that he was right, and no doubt that his newspaper would have done some checking at its end to ensure that it thought that he was right, before publication. Be that as it may, this was the background, and he was charged under the Public Order Act of Sierra Leone. The charges concerned the publication of a false statement, first about the issue of the warrant for the arrest of Mr. Easmon and then about the Government's "state of nerves"—the phrase used in his cable. On both of these he was acquitted.
The third charge was that he published a false statement likely to injure the reputation of the Government of Sierra Leone. It is, of course, common in most of the newer independent States of Africa for newspapers to publish a good deal of the critical statements about them which appear in the British Press, although not necessarily in full. Both Government and Opposition newspapers republish something which has been published in London to support a point of view which they are trying to put at the time. To that extent, it was maintained that the statement made was likely to injure the reputation of the Sierra Leone Government. He was convicted on one count and acquitted on the other, on which he was cautioned and discharged.
On a fourth charge, that of causing fear and alarm to the public, he was acquitted. The next was that he published a false report likely to injure the reputation of the Government of Sierra Leone. On this he was convicted and again cautioned and discharged. Finally, he was charged with the publication of a seditious publication, namely a cable, under Section 33(1) of the Public Order Act, and on both counts, he was convicted and fined £100. He left Sierra Leone on 29th July and arrived back in London the same day.
These are the facts of the charges made against him. He was of course tried without a jury and I know that he is aware of this. This was, however, in accordance with the laws of Sierra Leone. He was detained for six days without being charged. On this, our High Commissioner made very strong representations. Those matters in which any

Commonwealth country is acting according to its own laws are ones in which the British Government cannot intervene, but where, as in this case, there is imprisonment without charge, it is rather different. On this it was felt proper that the High Commissioner should convey the views of the British Government.
A good deal has been said about the treatment of Mr. Loshak. Our information is that he certainly did not have all the facilities normally taken for granted by anyone in custody in this country. Nevertheless, we must accept that we cannot apply all the standards even of custody in this country to countries in West Africa. My information is that the conditions under which Mr. Loshak was detained, as distinct from the fact that he was detained without being charged, were no different from those which generally prevail in most of West Africa.
After initial difficulty, our High Commissioner had complete opportunities to act on Mr. Loshak's behalf in assisting to arrange for his defence and one or two other matters which were felt to be useful at the time. We have no complaints of any lack of access for our High Commissioner. These are the facts.
It is probably best to leave on one side the statement of the hon. Member for Dorset, South, who seemed to impugn the trial and the evidence given at it. He quoted the opinion of the entire Bar of Sierra Leone. It would not be proper for me to comment on these matters. They concern the legal trial according to the law of Sierra Leone. I have no reason to suppose that any of his statements were particularly well-founded. I will state the Government's position——

Mr. Evelyn King: The hon. Lady is disregarding what I said. Is she also disregarding what the judge said, that the Attorney-General's conduct savoured of persecution?

Mrs. Hart: No. I was referring rather to the other remarks which the hon. Member made about Sir Albert Margai and the nature of the evidence he gave, and the basis on which the judge reached his conclusion, and what the hon. Member said about the Attorney-General in his personal capacity rather than as Attorney-General.
May I come to the position of Her Majesty's Government? Our High Commissioner took every step which was open


to him on the question of detention in custody and of making sure that Mr. Loshak had full legal representation in his defence. He also had a good deal of discussion with the authorities in Sierra Leone about aspects of the question. But I must emphasise that it would have been quite improper for the High Commissioner on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in any way to seek to intervene in the processes of the law of Sierra Leone, which were being followed out, because that would have been tantamount—as I said in a letter to one of my hon. Friends who wrote to me about this case—to asking the Government of an independent Commonwealth country to interfere with the discretion of its judiciary, and clearly that would not be correct.
We have to be quite clear that any Commonwealth country has the right to expel United Kingdom citizens in accordance with its own laws, but we take the view that this right should not be abused by proceeding arbitrarily. We therefore reserve the right to make representations to any Commonwealth Government in any individual case if the manner in which the power of the courts is exercised causes hardship or seems to be arbitrary or unjust. This right has been exercised, and continues to be exercised. For example, this summer it has been exercised in the case of Major Boyle's expulsion from Nigeria in June, and in the case of Walter Schwarz, the Guardian correspondent in Nigeria, who was arrested in June. The latest example is the protest which we made concerning the staff of Salisbury University College. There have been a number of cases recently in which we have not refrained from exercising our right to make representations if we have felt that there was arbitrary exercise of authority or hardship being caused.
This is different from representations, which we cannot make, concerning the operation of the laws of a country perfectly correctly according to their concept of their laws. It has been suggested that we deny ourselves in this House the opportunity to be fully informed about matters which might enable more accurate assessments to be made as to whether increased aid should be given to a country if we do not have full, unfettered and free reports from journalists from

those countries. The answer to this must surely lie in making certain that there are plenty of opportunities for journalists from Britain to visit the countries concerned and to tell us about them on their return where the political situation in the country they have been visiting is very delicate; as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said the situation is indeed very delicate in a number of African countries at the moment. We must understand that they are extremely sensitive to what they regard not merely as damaging criticism but as a misrepresentation of the facts which may exacerbate the situation in their country. In those countries where there is this sensitivity to criticism we have to await the return of journalists to Britain before they can tell us the true story which they would like to tell. I do not think that we are denying ourselves information which we ought to have.
The Government, of course, have many other sources of information, so that we need not fear that the Government are losing accurate assessments which are necessary to us. Moreover, no hon. Member has suggested that the hard reporting of news does not come through to us accurately from any African country. I think that no one suggests that even in this case there was suppression of the actual reporting of events. In this case the whole issue centres around a non-event rather than an event. It is not, therefore, hard news reporting with which we are concerned.
To try to set this in what I see to be its right perspective, one must consider the general question of the freedom of the Press in Commonwealth countries. This must, in the first place, be a matter for the sovereign Governments concerned. It is, as I have said, inappropriate for Her Majesty's Government to make representations except where we feel that British journalists have been unfairly treated. But, of course, non-governmental bodies can take whatever steps they feel it right to take.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 7th July, there are influential bodies in journalism. There is the Commonwealth Press Union and the International Federation of Journalists, both of which are well suited to exercise a great deal of influence; indeed, influence which is probably more important in this


sphere than the direct influence of Governments. However, we must be sensitively aware that the freedom of the Press is a mark of a highly sophisticated and fully educated democracy.
I wonder if hon. Members who have spoken in this issue tonight have remembered our history from the point of view of the freedom of the Press. The British Press began in the 16th century and developed in the 17th century. It consisted of a series of news and snippets of gossip from the coffee houses of London. It was not until the late 18th century that we had anything that could be said to be equated with freedom of the Press. The relaxation that took place at the end of the 17th century was only comparative in relation to the hand-written news letters of the time. It must be remembered that we had a Parliament in Britain at that time and that it had existed for many years. And yet Government censorship prevailed on anything published by way of news and the printed Press was licensed and, therefore, censored. It was not until after the whole story of John Wilkes—after all the stories of those who were sent to prison for their criticism of the Government that, in the late 18th century, the laws of libel were changed in Britain so that, for the first time, we really removed Government censorship from the Press.
If we look back at the way in which the freedom of the Press in this country developed pari passu with the growth of effective democracy and a more sophisticated Parliamentary system of government, we cannot be surprised if the newly-emergent African State which have had independence for, perhaps, only one, two, or five years, have not yet felt confident to reach the position in which we now find ourselves in the 20th century. These States are still very vulnerable and sensitive to external criticism.
I hope that we can, in the years ahead, encourage them to feel that they can allow free criticism by the Press and that they need not regard that criticism as a threat to their security. However, I fear that it may be—and I am being realistic—some time yet before all of them can feel confident enough about their internal security. Until it can rest on a fully informed politically educated population, it must rest on other things. Until they

reach that point, they will find it difficult to afford to the Press the luxury of free criticism—something which we no longer regard as a luxury; although for some years to come in Africa a free Press may continue to be regarded as a luxury.
Everyone who has felt concerned about the case of Mr. Loshak should remember the high reputation he has had on the various newspapers for which he has worked, and I am sure that he will not find this in any way damaging to his career. I am sure that he will continue to give us information from the various parts of the world to which he is sent and I am certain that, in this case, the difficulty arose mainly because he was less well acquainted with and had spent less time in Sierra Leone than in most of the other countries about which he had been keeping his newspaper so fully informed in the period before then.

SCOTLAND (BORDER DEVELOPMENT)

2.20 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: The Border region of Scotland is the smallest of the economic regions or sub-regions which are part of the Government's pattern of economic planning. Despite that, I make no apology, even at twenty past two in the morning, for initiating a debate on the development problems of that area, as I believe that this is the first opportunity the House has had specifically to consider them. I hope that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) may get an opportunity to take part, because this region is distinctive in that it is represented by only two Members of Parliament and, despite our party political differences, we try to work together for its benefit.
I shall not repeat what I have said in more general debates about the steady drain of population from this part of Scotland. In recent years, the very growing prosperity of other parts of the country has emphasised this drain, and the need for new male-employing industry has become more apparent. The development district policy pursued under the Local Employment Acts—which in itself had much to commend it—had the side effect of accentuating the problem of


depopulation. The development scheme in central Scotland resulted in adding yet one more place to which people from the Borders went to seek work.
The position now is that the Borders, in common with most parts of Scotland, is a development area by the new definition, in that it is eligible as an area for the new investment grants, and the Government have announced in the Scottish Plan their intention to increase the population of what they define as the western Borders, which is my constituency, by 25,000 by 1980, with Galashiels acting as the focal point.
Lately, we have had the welcome news that the first advance factory to come to the Borders is to be sited at Kelso. It is worth mentioning in passing that the choice of Kelso was probably largely influenced by the fact that the burgh is fortunate in having an almost clear housing list, whereas most other burghs in my constituency have serious housing problems of their own. With an up-to-date housing list, Kelso was able to offer housing and go ahead with the programme for incoming workers. The lesson stands clearly before the other burghs that housing is the key to attracting a new industry, and I am glad that there is to be an early start on a scheme for 1,000 new houses in the Galashiels area.
The coming of the advance factory to Kelso re-emphasises the point I have made consistently ever since I came to this House, that the whole area must be open to possible development; that the advantages of being a development area apply not just to the focal point of Galashiels but to the region as a whole, and such local initiative as is general throughout the region may be rewarded by the development of new industries and of existing firms there, instead of, as was so often the case in the past, our finding our firms moving out and setting up branch factories elsewhere. We have also the recent appointment of the Economic Planning Group, under the chairmanship of Mr. Tait, which has started work on advising the Government as to the precise nature of our local problems and the way in which the planning should be implemented.
In passing, while I welcome the composition of this group, and think that it will do valuable work, I would point

out that the Government know quite well that it was my view that, rather than having simply an advisory body, I should like to have seen a development authority for the region. The prototype of the Highland Development Board might have been extended as a swifter means of accelerating development in the Borders. Nevertheless, this group, limited though its powers are, will perform useful work. This is the side of the policy which is designed to attract into the region by positive inducements, new forms of employment, which is something I have always advocated.
There are two aspects of the question of combating depopulation. The other is that the infrastructure of the area has to be developed to a point where the region itself becomes attractive to incoming industry. The most important current controversy about development in the Borders centres around the proposal of British Railways to withdraw passenger services from the Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle railway line—the last of the Beeching proposals in Scotland to be decided. Since that proposal was first made, two factors have emerged which should alter the decision. One is the proposed development in the Western Borders through which this line is the main artery. The other is the publication of the Government's White Paper on transport a few days ago which recognises the rôle of the railways in economic development and stresses that
commercial viability is important but secondary".
It is with these factors in mind that I read with some astonishment the statement made in Glasgow last week by the Chairman of the Railways Board, Mr. Raymond, to the effect that there was nothing inconsistent in the closure of the line and the designation of the Borders as a development area and—according to a Press report—
what new development districts need is a good road system".
I hope that the Minister of State will take the opportunity of saying tonight that Mr. Raymond is not an architect of the Government's regional policies and that decision on the closure of the line will be a Government decision taken only after full consideration of all the economic factors necessary to Border development and only after considering


in particular the findings of their own Economic Planning Group.
When I learn that British Railways claim a loss of between £5,000 and £6,000 a year in running this line I am not very surprised. Business has been positively driven off to the roads, especially in the last three years since the Beeching proposal was first published by the failure of British Railways to improve the services offered, and several small stations in places where they are not essential have remained open while they are obviously uneconomic. I recognise that from British Railways' point of view it makes sense to close this Border route and transfer all the Edinburgh-London traffic on to the Carstairs line, thereby increasing the volume of traffic on that line to justify the capital cost of electrification. If we were in the old days when what was good for British Railways was the chief yardstick by which these things were judged that would have to be accepted, but if regional policies are to be meaningful, there can be no justification for retaining the Edinburgh-Carstairs line which serves no substantial community and most of whose stations are closed. It would be far better to make the Borders route the Edinburgh-London-West Coast route. That would be a tremendous shot in the arm for the economic development of the area.

Mr. Michael Noble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I thought I heard him say that it was British Railways' estimate that this line cost them £5,000 or £6,000 a year. Are these the figures from British Railways today?

Mr. Steel: No. These are figures—I do not know quite what date they are—which I am not claiming are recent figures at all. There may be more recent figures that will come out in the course of the public inquiry which is to be held later this year into the closure of the line. I should not be surprised if the figure was now very much an underestimate in view of the lack of development along the line since the Beeching proposal was made.
I cannot expect the Minister of State to comment in detail on the railway question because it is not his responsibility, but I want firmly to make the point that this is a general Government responsi-

bility and that, in my view, the withdrawal of passenger services from the line would be totally inconsistent with the development plans for the region as a whole.
Then there is another part of the infrastructure which I want to refer to—the medical services in the region. Peel Hospital was a temporary wooden-hutted hospital which must be due for replacement. I noted that Bangour Hospital, West Lothian, is being replaced because of development at Livingstone, and a new hospital is being created there. That is quite right and logical, but I hope that when the next hospital programme is published a new general hospital for the Borders will be included because that is a vital part of the economic regeneration of the area.
The general hospital services in the area require total overhaul. Several of the cottage hospitals are out of date. Some of them, because of the lack of geriatric facilities, are really converted for practical purposes to geriatric hospitals instead of providing the opportunities which cottage hospitals ought to provide. The cottage hospital at Peebles is so situated that it is flooded whenever the river rises beyond its banks and it has been due for replacement for many years now.
I believe that the opportunity exists in the Borders for the Government to pursue their policy of general health centres and clinics. I know from the talks I have had with people in the medical world in the Border region that this is something they would very much like and want to encourage. But the impression has got around that there is likely to be no immediate move in this direction, and the result has been in one town that general practitioners have already gone ahead and built a surgery of their own, and in another town they are considering so doing unless there are some signs of Government action fairly soon.
I say in passing that I think that the Government and the Scottish Office must initiate action in this matter, because the South-East Regional Hospital Board by its very nature and composition—and I am not for one moment accusing it of bad faith—is very much Edinburgh orientated. With the great medical tradition of Edinburgh, it has swamped


anything else within the Board's responsibility. The result is that hospital facilities in the Borders tend to be a bit of a Cinderella in the view of the Regional Hospital Board.
I want to say a word about tourism in the Borders. I am convinced that, of any part of Scotland, the Borders is the one with the greatest undeveloped tourist potential. Individual towns have done their best to sell their particular attractions, but it is my view that we have to sell the Borders as a tourist area in the same way that the Highlands have been sold as a tourist area. No one town in the Highlands, whether Oban, Fort William or Inverness, has stuck out a worldwide claim as a great tourist centre, but the Highlands of Scotland are known throughout the world as a tourist region. The Borders of Scotland are not even known throughout this country as a place of great tourist potential, scenic beauty, fine fishing, historic abbeys, and so on. I would like to see a more positive form of Government help to get the Borders on the map as a major tourist centre in Scotland.
In passing, although, again, this is not a responsibility of the Scottish Office, I must say that the Selective Employment Tax has not been helpful in the development of the tourist industry, or, indeed, the other service industries in the region. I hope that some of the half favourable comments that we have had from the Secretary of State about future variations of the Selective Employment Tax from region to region will be seriously considered in the next Finance Bill. I am sure that I will not be alone in creating a row if they are not. One can accept to a point that this crude instrument has been introduced in a hurry, but I hope that by next year regional variations, particularly the point which I put forward in the debate on the tax concerning concessions in the development areas, will be seriously considered.
No discussion of the problems of the Border would be complete without reference to the agriculture industry. Two points, one of which is permanently with us and the other current, have been put to me most forcibly by farmers in my constituency. The first is that I hope that the Government have a serious intention of introducing a new Agriculture Bill during the present Parliament, not this

year, but during whatever tenure of office the Government may have.
I certainly find that among the tenant farmers in my area there is a recognition that while the 1947 Act was too unfavourable to landlords and too biased in the direction of the tenant, the 1958 Act swung too much the other way. There is no doubt that many tenant farmers are finding their rents pushed up time after time because of the present system of arbitration based upon open market rents.
I know of cases in my constituency where a farm on an estate was let to a business man who could afford to pay a high rent; and the rents of all the other farms on the estate immediately went up because that is the economic rent as proved by the letting of the farm to someone who can afford to pay a high rent. This is an iniquitous system which is most unfair to those who depend for their living on the land.
In correspondence with the Scottish Office, I was astonished to learn that the Department attaches great weight to the views of the Scottish Landowners' Federation on this matter. If we wait for the Federation's Agreement, we will probably never get a new Act. Such a new Measure should also include a restoration of a measure of security of tenure from father to son.
The current matter in agriculture to which I refer is the credit squeeze. Unless relief can be granted to farmers, the credit squeeze will have a particularly adverse effect upon agriculture in the sense that it will prevent farmers from borrowing on the basis of their future crops to buy animals in the markets over the next two or three months. Already I have had letters from farmer constituents verifying this. It is bound to have a depressing effect upon the industry. As much as possible, the agriculture industry should be exempted from the severe limitations upon credit.
I believe that the future for the Borders is a very bright one provided that the Government are prepared to pay attention to some of these fundamental matters which will affect the pattern of development.
I have referred before with some pride to the export record of this region per head of population in terms of woollens and tweeds. I have said before that if every


region of the country had an export record like ours we should not be in our present balance of payments situation. The potential is great. I do not believe in holding out a begging bowl to the Government on behalf of the Borders. That is not the right approach, but we are entitled to ask that the region be given the same opportunity as other parts of the country to compete and to show that it has a really great future.

2.40 a.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I am glad to catch your eye on this topic, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not just because Border development affects my own constituency so closely but also because the subject is interesting as a planning problem in its own right. It is the hardest planning problem in Scotland. The depopulation of the eastern Borders has gone on faster than in any other part of Scotland, including the Highlands. The population of Berwickshire, for instance, dropped by 10 per cent. in the last decade, and it is now below regeneration point, the point at which the present population can recreate itself. This is one of the problems that requires most rapid and urgent attention from the Government, and I am glad to say that it has had this.
The second reason why it is extremely important and interesting to discuss the subject is that it is a composite problem affecting many Government Departments, not only the Scottish Office but the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Ministry of Transport. The problem crosses the Tweed into Northern England, and it also affects the Lothians, around the Edinburgh area. I see only the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) present to represent the Conservatives tonight. I hope that he and his party have appreciated now that this matter can be handled only by Government activity and Government planning, by the Government and local authorities taking a lead.
I was grateful to the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), the last Conservative Prime Minister, for coming into my constituency—he is a constituent of mine—to the county town of Duns and telling the assembled multitudes not to worry about depopulation, for it would solve

itself within 30 years. That reminds me of Lord Keynes's distinction between the short run and the long run. He said that in the long run we are all dead.
I was also grateful to the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), who underlined this point a month before the 1964 General Election, when he came to Berwick-on-Tweed, surveyed the problems of the whole Border area and said that one thing was clear—that this could never be declared a development area. We had to concentrate on growth points in the North-East of England and Central Scotland, and the area in between could be left to itself.
I was grateful to him for saying that. It reminds me of a remark made only this weekend, that nothing stands between the Conservative Party and power except the Leader of the Opposition. That is a little favourable. I do not think that the Conservative Party's chances of power are quite as hopeful even as that, or as tenuous, whichever way one looks at it. But I hope that it has now been appreciated that the attitude of laissez-faire, that the Government would do nothing for the Borders, meant complete disaster, and may be the chief reason why the two people speaking tonight on behalf of the Borders are both members of other parties than the Conservative Party.
Nevertheless, having made this general point, I think that it is now fair to say that all people in the area, of all parties, are struggling to do their best under the leadership of the present Government with their Border development plan to get some development going, to arrest the depopulation and to reverse the trend. I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that at the moment the situation looks bright, that there is a good deal of activity going on. This is largely because of the Government's determination and their decision to declare the entire Borders, indeed the whole of Scotland barring the Edinburgh area, a development area, thus making it possible to get a 40 per cent. grant for plant and machinery in this area when the new Act comes into operation.
There are also all the other points the Chancellor of the Exchequer has insisted upon in his development area policy. He has given special assistance, through the Local Employment Acts, for extra jobs


in development areas. The control of office development in the South-East has had its good effect in dispersing office development. I wish that we could get some dispersal within Scotland from Edinburgh into the Border area. The control of industrial development certificates has been a help. There is preferential access to the Public Works Loan Board and, above all, there is exemption for the development areas from the cuts in both the past and the present squeezes.
I hope that these factors are firmly in the Government's mind and will be reinforced by what is said tonight. There are one or two features in the situation which will not, I hope, be allowed to reverse the hopeful trend which we have had in the past two years. First—again, I echo what was said by the hon. Gentleman—there is the tricky position of agriculture at present. I have spoken about agriculture in the Borders already in this Parliament, and I have been a little worried at the somewhat unenthusiastic reception of my remarks on the Government benches. I think that there is still an attitude on this side that farmers are rich men with Jaguars who send their children to fee-paying schools and who, if anything, can be squeezed a bit more than they have been.
What farmers, just as with miners, school teachers or anyone else, do with their money is absolutely their own business. What we have to do is to consider whether the industry as an industry is in a healthy state. I have looked up the statistics of incomes accepted by the Government in the last Price Review. For even the largest farmers in Scotland, net incomes were £2,600, £2,400, £2,500 and £2,500 a year for the four major categories of farm listed; and these figures include not merely income but return on capital of businesses with £150,000 or £180,000 invested in them. If we on this side heard of industrialists who had that return on their capital, we should either say that they were either inefficient or we should be shocked.
In fact, most of the farmers of Scotland are extremely efficient. They certainly are in our area. The simple fact is that they are being squeezed on to very tight margins by the present Government's policy of tight Price Reviews, and the end result is that capital is not being recreated or not being ploughed back.

Machinery is not being renewed. Those of us who know the Borders and the farming areas there will understand this point. It is a worrying factor in the area if there is not sufficient capital formation in agriculture.

Mr. Noble: How does the hon. Gentleman connect this with his statement a minute or two ago that the whole of the development areas were being isolated from the Government's squeeze policies?

Mr. Mackintosh: This is not part of the squeeze policy. It is part of the Government's policy for agriculture. The point I made earlier was that the development areas have been exempted from the cuts in capital investment. There has never been any question but that the agricultural policy applies throughout the country.

Mr. Noble: So does the rest.

Mr. Mackintosh: I have spoken about agriculture and the shortage of capital in the area. I was alarmed to find that this has spread to the inshore fishing fleet as a result of the Government's latest decision to cut subsidies by a rather heavy—and disputed—percentage. I understand from my recent conversations with the Minister that he reckons it to be about 14 or 15 per cent., though it comes to more than that in my calculations.
The inshore fishing fleet, on which also the area depends to a considerable extent, has been badly hit by this decision. I hope that the Government will think about this carefully when considering the amount of capital that they are prepared to put into the area.
Finally, there is the question of transport, which the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles raised. I would not go all the way with him about making such a strong case for the particular Edinburgh/Carlisle line, but I would agree that British Rail is very defensive when it is asked for its figures on these matters. When one asks it to integrate transport decisions with local economic decisions, one is brushed off with the fact that it has gone through the legal formalities, and it is required to do no more. One is entitled to ask it to discuss these matters in the general context of the economic development of the region.
I do not want to raise the matter of the A1 road again. It is a point which we have debated at length in the House. At the moment, the whole Border area has not one first-class road running through it. Neither the A1, the A68 nor the A7 has been fully developed as a modern dual carriageway. The sort of argument that we get again and again is that the traffic over these routes does not merit that development. Of course, if they are bad, slow, unsatisfactory routes, the traffic uses other routes, and that becomes a self-justifying maxim.
We have the same argument from British Rail over the development of a major rail link up the east coast. I do not dispute its major point that this line must be kept open, but I dispute its reluctance to furnish us with sufficient facts about particular station closures which one wants to discuss. I am worried about its policy of closing down particular commuter services in and out of Edinburgh, because parts of the borders must be developed as a commuter area. It is a major way in which population can be brought back to those areas.
On agriculture, fishing and transport, there are question marks over the area which may do a great deal to thwart what otherwise has been a very promising line of development. Two factors have kept the whole thing going. The first is the industrial development policy, and the second is the housing programme of the Government. The two things needed for development are housing and advance factories. There has been a tremendous effort by the Government to push reluctant local authorities into building houses, and I am glad to say that, in large part, it has been a success. I would echo the comment by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles that one reason why Kelso has an advance factory is that it has built the houses that it needs. It is building more houses, and I hope that it will be an example to other small authorities in the area which want advance factories within their burghs.
The second point is the advance factory. Too many different authorities are concerned at the moment, and I hope that we shall see them all work together. In East

Midlothian, which comes on to the Border area, the matter is left to the local planning authority. Within the Berwick-shire-Kelso-Berwick-on-Tweed triangle, it is left to the new organisation, the Eastern Border Development Association, working through the development commissions. In the Galashiels area, it has been taken under the direct wing of the Scottish Office. So we have at least three or four different authorities working on the question of bringing small-scale industry into the area. At the moment, the whole thing has a fair momentum largely because of the tremendous amount of push that individuals are putting behind it in the area, and I would pay tribute to people of all parties on these authorities who are working as hard as they can, with tremendous zeal, to bring these factories, develop the area and arrest depopulation.
I ask the Minister of State to give the House an assurance that the particular demands which the eastern borders have put before the Treasury for three advance factories will be granted, and, secondly, that the next round of factory development which is supposed to take place next year—a set of three advance factories—will be allowed to go ahead. I was disappointed when it was decided to locate two of these factories in Berwick-on-Tweed and one in Kelso. I accept Berwick-upon-Tweed and Kelso as sites for two of the factories but I would rather the third had been in an intermediary position at Duns or Eyemouth or Coldstream.
I was a little worried that the old argument with the Scottish Office about growth points in the Border area and a new town has reappeared in the new talks. The argument was put forward under the last Government that the only thing wanted in the Borders was a new town on the ground that development was not concentrated. We want development spread about and now two of the three new advance factories are in Berwick-upon-Tweed, on the same ground of concentration in one area.
I hope that it is remembered that Labour policy is to try to regenerate the existing small burghs, to use fresh capital and to spread development throughout an area which requires development at a lot of places and not merely in one or two localities. I trust that the second round of advance factories will be more


widespread. If it is found hard—and I do not believe that it will—to find tenants for the factories, I hope that the Government will twist the arms of some of their contractors of a large part of their needs—paper and red tape and so forth—to go to some of these factories and utilise them.
I remind the House of the successful experiment when the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board said it would not buy from a particular contractor unless he set up a factory in its area. He did so, at Buckie, and it has proved fantastically successful. But it would not have been there but for the action of a powerful Government agency. Similar action would help bring small-scale industries to these advance factories if the Government are otherwise unable to find tenants for them but, judging by what we have seen so far, that is not likely at the moment.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if this industrial development we are encouraging, this attempt to get light industry into the Borders, does not have sufficient momentum to overcome the difficulties I have mentioned, we must use other weapons available. One of these is the Selective Employment Tax. I welcome the assurance given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Treasury Ministers that, when the next Finance Bill comes in, if there is any sign of faltering in the regional policy of the Government, which has proved so successful, the tax can be used to stimulate and encourage development in these areas.
But, in case that situation arises, I hope the Government will collect not only regional statistics but sub-regional statistics so that we shall know what we are doing and have accurate figures to work on and will use Government initiative and planning to get this whole area into a much more satisfactory condition.

2.58 a.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) on having managed to get so high up in the list of debates, even though the subject has not come up until this hour. He has raised a subject which has given us a great deal of thought since we took office.
The Border area has its own peculiar problems. In the Scottish Economic Plan we put forward proposals that try to tackle those problems and since then we have been taking the initial steps in trying to carry them through. So far, there has been a general welcome for the Government's proposals in the Western area.
There has been a general welcome for the proposals to promote a large expansion in the Galashiels and St. Boswells area. At the meeting of the Borders Consultative Group it has been clear that the various burghs are prepared to sink their traditional rivalries and work together to exploit the widening opportunities in the Borders which the new project will create. In other words, there is a general recognition that the development of a real regional centre of population and employment in the Borders will benefit the area much more than a distribution of the same industry and population could possibly do.
I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that the centre of Government effort and investment in the Galashiels and St. Boswells area does not mean that development will be discouraged in other towns. The situation is that all the main communities in the western borders now have a very unbalanced population structure and that their populations are actually declining. It is of the greatest importance, if they are to attract new industry and allow existing industries to expand, that they increase their housing programmes and show a much greater readiness than they appear to have done in the past to make houses available to young people, to potential migrants and to incoming workers. Many Border towns now recognise that they must allow young people and incoming workers to obtain houses if they are to survive.
For their part the Government are also recognising this need in a practical fashion by allocating Scottish Special Housing Association houses in support of industry, for example at Peebles, Kelso and Galashiels, not to mention the major extension itself. Here the first thousand houses will be provided entirely by the S.S.H.A. It is also important that the Border burghs be urged to accept new population, from whatever quarter.
In this connection there has probably been, in the past, an under-estimate of the value of overspill. This is perhaps because it is a facility that has to be worked for. Glaswegians tend not to go to the Borders of their own accord but as a result of the careful co-ordination of endeavour by industry, local authorities and Glasgow Corporation. Given this, they will come, as recent experience in Hawick and, on a smaller scale, in Peebles, has shown. All this means that industry and local authorities must become more fully aware of the widening expansionist opportunities which the Government's effort is creating in the Borders.
We look particularly to the Consultative Group to help sharpen this awareness and to make those in the Borders fully appreciate the implications of the new development area status that they will shortly enjoy. Naturally, the development of these plans in the western area of the Borders also requires the development of an adequate infrastructure, including an adequate and efficient railway system. Here again, I should like to say something about the Waverley line. After postponement it is now expected that British Railways will advertise the proposed closure of passenger services on this line on 17th August. At its last meeting in Hawick the Consultative Group left us in no doubt whatever that it was strongly opposed to this closure.
The line is an extremely severe loser. I have had a figure mentioned to me, but I do not want to give it without checking. It is very much more than the hon. Gentleman suggests—it is nearer the £100,000 mark than the £6,000 or £7,000. It is a very heavy loser and the Government must be satisfied, before deciding to maintain it, that it is really necessary on social or economic grounds, or both. It will be the business of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee to ascertain hardship and later it will be the responsibility of the Scottish Economic Planning Council, assisted by the T.U.C.C., to assess the economic significance of the line and the hardship there may be to the area which it is proposed should be developed.
Meanwhile, the consultations with, and the guidance of, Professor Marshall should result in the drawing up of a

plan for development of the western area, and this should show us the pattern of development in the future and the kind of transport network which will be required. This will enable us to understand more clearly the value of this route to the Borders and, on the basis of these findings, it is the Government's intention to see that the Border areas get the transport system which is needed. Development of health and other services will, of course, also be planned to fit in with the growing needs of the area.
The hon. Gentleman spoke also of tourism and emphasised how much he would like to see this developed, but in the Report in the Scottish Plan on the Borders, he will see on page 99, that in paragraphs 31 to 34, it is pointed out that tourism is not a major industry. It is not thought that the position will change, and reasons are given for this. In other words, the review of the Borders did not hold out great prospect of a rapid or large expansion in tourism. Of course, if it can be developed, well and good, and we should not fail to encourage it in any way we can. But I would remind the hon. Member of the advice which we have received on this.

Mr. David Steel: It is important that we get this quite clear. I do not dissent from the views of the study group as to the existing situation, but I said that I believed that this area was capable of considerable development, and no attempt has been properly made to develop it as a major tourist centre. It can be given encouragement, but there should be an actual determination that this should be part of the plans for the development of the region.

Mr. Willis: While we should like to see tourism develop, I can only say what was the finding of the group which studied this topic in great detail.
The hon. Gentleman also raised questions about agriculture and in particular the 1958 Act. He spoke of tenant farmers, but that is a subject for consultation between the Department of Agriculture and the Scottish N.F.U. and the Scottish Landowners' Federation. Whether he likes it or not, we have to consult the landowners. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] We have tried to find a solution to some of the problems the hon. Member has mentioned, but so far


as agriculture is concerned, it is a matter for consultation between all the bodies interested.
I would like now to turn to the eastern area, dealt with by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). The programme of social development envisaged by the new Development Committee is getting under way. The Committee met recently to discuss, for example, the location of the first of the advance factories for which it is making application to the Development Commission. It has now made application for two factories, each of 10,000 square feet to be sited at Berwick and Kelso. My hon. Friend asked me to give a definite assurance that these applications would be approved——

Mr. Mackintosh: Is not my hon. Friend mistaken? Were not three applied for—two at Berwick-on-Tweed and one at Kelso? That is my information.

Mr. Willis: My information is that there were applications for two factories, each of 10,000 square feet, at Berwick and Kelso.
My hon. Friend asked me to give a guarantee that these applications would be approved by the Treasury. He will appreciate that I cannot give a categorical assurance that the Treasury will approve an application; it would not be proper for me to do so, otherwise there would be no point in an application being made. It would have been easy for the Development sub-committee of the Eastern Borders Development Association to argue that each small community in Berwickshire or North Northumberland should have a share in the industrial space that might be going, but, as our border study suggested, Berwick-on-Tweed is the real centre of the eastern area, and if it is to continue as a viable service centre its population structure must be enforced, which, in turn, means increasing the variety of employment available.
Equally, as a focus of the area Berwick could work for the eastern borders as a whole in a way that employment spread over many different towns could not. People nowadays look to a variety of choice in employment, and this would be difficult to get with smaller factories spread over a much larger area.
Likewise Kelso, lying half-way between the eastern and western borders is also

a focal point, where employment can help to maintain the town's active role. Both Berwick-on-Tweed and Kelso are ready to implement proposals for a considerable increase in their housing programmes. Both Berwick-on-Tweed and Kelso will require a substantial increase of population if their demographic imbalance is to be put right. But there must be priorities, and they must lie in the west.
Meanwhile, the programme invisaged by the Development Commission can provide a useful start in the eastern area. If successful in the early stages there is no reason why it should not be substantially expanded in time to enable the eastern area to achieve stability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian also mentioned questions involving the wide field of agriculture policy. The National Plan contains a programme of selective expansion for agriculture. We are passing a rather important agriculture Bill through Committee upstairs at present.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of fishing, and the reduction in the subsidies to the inshore fleets. I do not wish to embark on a long discourse about fishing; the fact is that the inshore fishing fleet is under an obligation to become viable, even if the time limit fixed for this is not 10 years, as in the case of the middle and distant water fleets. If reductions have to be made in the subsidies they should be made at a time when the inshore fleets are enjoying a good year's fishing. This is what has been happening, and that is why the reductions were made.
My hon. Friend also referred to the question of the A1. Work is proceeding on various sections of this road to improve it. We must use the limited funds available where there is the heaviest volume of traffic. That means that we must get on with the A74 and the other main roads with heavy industrial traffic. We do recognise the importance of the A1, however: work on it will continue until it can meet the needs of the area. I have mentioned the Government's commitment in the western area, and the development area status for the whole Border area will create new opportunities.
There remains the problem of small businesses and industries. It is often difficult for small businesses adjusted to a


static or even a declining situation to adjust quickly to new opportunities. This is where two institutions under the umbrella of the Development Commission can be of value—the Scottish Country Industries Development Trust and the Rural Industries Loan Fund. The former is financed from the Development Fund and provides advice to small businesses in country areas on management, accountancy, new techniques, marketing and so on. It is strengthening and re-organising services in the development and expansion of small industries, which can be of great value in an area like the Borders. We hope that, through the consultative group, everyone in the Borders able to make use of the Trust will do so. Meanwhile, any small business with a problem should get in touch with the Trust's local officer, Mr. Clarkson of Melrose, who can put them in touch with the appropriate advisers from headquarters.
Another of the Trust's services of particular importance is its advice in making application to the Board of Trade Advisory Committee. Development area status will bring new facilities to the Borders with which people will not be familiar and the Trust can do much to help the Borders get the best of what is offered.
The Rural Industries Loan Fund makes money available for the small industries and is the instrument by which the Development Commission can make money available in, for example, providing or altering buildings, buying equipment or doing capital work. There will be a wide spectrum of assistance for the Borders, ranging from the major expansion expected to increase the population of the western area by 25,000 over the next 10 to 15 years to precise and detailed assistance for small businesses.
Nor is the social side of life forgotten. It is the concern of the Development Commission that its industrial development in the eastern area should be matched by a development of social facilities—not just in social services in the ordinary sense, but in helping to maintain an adequate quality of life in a changing countryside. It has considered this matter and hopes to establish the appropriate machinery shortly.
I have tried to show what is being done in the Borders. I think that I have

answered most of the detailed points, and I hope that I have convinced the hon. Gentleman that we are taking the problems of the Borders seriously. We are trying to deal with them expeditiously and in the right way.

3.20 a.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: As I listened with my usual pleasure to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) making one of his pre-election speeches I could not help wondering where he had been in the last two weeks, because the tremedous write-up with which he started his speech bore no relation at all to what has happened more recently. It is quite unbelievable that anyone who has been in the House should still repeat the extraordinary statement that the Government's cuts made in recent months do not affect the development areas, because all that has not been cut, as far as I can make out, is housing, education and hospitals, and they have not been cut in any part of the country, so that his decision is not special to the development areas. There is the possibility that if someone wanted to build a lot of big offices in the Borders he would not positively be prevented from doing so, but to believe that that is likely to happen in the next few months is cloud-cuckoo-land in the extreme.

Mr. Mackintosh: The six forms of industrial assistance given by this Government to the development areas all remain intact, as the right hon. Member well knows.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Member did not list any industrial assistance beyond the fact that there are certain industrial incentives and that the Border country has been lucky in getting such incentives which it did not have before. But quite a large share of the extra £1,000 million which has to be found by the country to pay for Socialist mismanagement comes from the Border country.
The problem is very difficult. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was right in his approach to an analysis of the various problems which have affected and are still affecting the Borders—and, for everything that the Minister of State said, are likely to go on affecting them, because we had nothing but his usual delightful and enlightened waffle.
The most important problem is that of infrastructure. We were told nothing about the railways problem. I agree with the Minister's view about the cost of this railway, because the figures which I was given a few years ago were very different from those quoted by the hon. Member. What the Government have not done—and all the planning was prepared for them in Scottish Office before they came to power—is to make any decisions at all about either railwya or roads. Nothing the Minister of State said in any way contradicted that statement. They produced a scheme for the Borders which gave a possible new town in Galashiels but it was left sitting in the air with no method of getting there either by road or by rail. This is typical Socialist planning. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian made some comments on my right hon. Friend. In the same Socialist Plan there is a hope that something may be done for the Solway area in 1990—and this is in a carefully prepared White Paper—and if that is not as long-term as anything my right hon. Friend did, I do not know what is.
Another problem which affects many areas—certainly the Highlands—is lack of medical services. I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles that we cannot get people to stop in those areas, and the position has been particularly difficult in the Borders where there has not been enough male employment. We shall not keep them there unless there are adequate medical services and adequate roads—and television. I do not know whether hon. Members who have spoken live in such areas, but there are areas in which people can hear only Radio Caroline—which the Government are trying to shut down—because the B.B.C. services do not reach them. There is bound to be discontent until the people living in these areas are provided with the same amenities of life as exist in other parts of the country. The Government have not

yet realised this problem, as is obvious to anyone who examines their so-called plans.
I understand why the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian gets an un-enthusiastic reception from the Government Front Bench when he speaks about agriculture. The hon. Gentleman speaks with farmers and studies their problems, which are alien to his right hon. Friends. If we are to get a reasonable return from farming, forestry and the fishing industry, enough money must be given to those who man these industries. Only in this way can they employ people and have thriving enterprises.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh Selkirk and Peebles said that more should be done for the tenants. Just before coming into the Chamber I was reading an analysis of this problem in a document in the Library. After dealing with the problems of tenants and landlords, it concluded that a good tenant got a return of 30 per cent. on the capital he employed while a landlord was lucky if he got 2 per cent. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles seemed to be arguing that one must penalise the landlord and give more to the tenant. I disagree. The answer is to make the rewards for working on the land sufficient to enable the tenant to pay a fair rent, so enabling the landlord to keep the farm buildings in good order.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian spoke of the Government's housing programme, but I dare not start on that subject. The hon. Gentleman was setting off into cloud cuckoo land, and I will leave it at that. This has been an interesting debate, because many problems have been raised. They were raised with me often enough when I was in office. Unfortunately, the Minister merely answered via his Scottish Office brief—something which I tried to suppress; I admit, not always successfully—and did not produce one concrete plan. He just left us with his assurance that everything was being studied.

CARAVAN SITES

3.29 a.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I do not apologise for detaining the House at half past three in the morning because the problem I wish to raise is the extremely important one of the conditions of residential caravan sites. I have been waiting for a suitable opportunity to draw attention once again to this subject.
It is nice to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in his place. It is rather like old times—like our deliberations on the Rent Bill and, before that, the Protection from Eviction Bill. On those occasions we had a number of opportunities to argue about what should be done in connection with residential caravan sites. I hope that some progress has been made since we last discussed the matter in public. I have had a number of opportunities to discuss the subject with the hon. Gentleman in private and I hope that, as a result of those discussions, he will say that progress has been made towards solving this problem.
The problem is one of increasing importance because the number of people living in residential caravans is growing rapidly. That is obvious from the figures.
If we take the period of the last 15 years, we find that from the census of 1951 to the census of 1961 the number of residential caravans increased from 30,000 to 75,000, and that at the date of the 1961 census there were about 184,000 persons living permanently in caravans. Recent estimates suggest a further growth, and the National Caravan Council estimates from production figures that there may today be around 100,000 residential caravans, in which some 300,000 people are living.
My first point, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will know that I have made it in correspondence with the Minister, is that the Government cannot just ignore the contribution that is being made, and which will continue to be made in future by the mobile home for the satisfaction of the country's housing needs. I make it absolutely clear that by "mobile homes" I do not mean "mobile homes" in the old L.C.C. terminology but as they are called in the trade, which means a caravan of at least 250 sq. ft. of floor area, and which also

conforms to British Standard 3632 of 1963.
To the extent that local authorities are prepared to grant licences for residential caravan sites, the number of people who need accommodation in permanent houses will be reduced. I believe, therefore, and I have told the Minister this, that the Government should take steps to obtain periodic reports from local authorities showing the number of residential pitches licensed, and the number occupied, so that the information could be included in the national housing statistics.
When I put that idea to the Minister last autumn, suggesting that an appropriate medium for publication of the figures would be the quarterly Housing Returns, he replied that the return is basically
… a record of the number of permanent dwellings provided or, in the case of slum clearance, demolished and replaced.
The Minister sees the information as providing an index of the Government's performance and that of the housing authorities.
For this reason, additional details are given in the quarterly Returns as, for example, of the number of temporary houses still in use, and the number of people living in camps. The Minister stresses that a comprehensive housing picture could not be presented in the quarterly Housing Returns because it would be far too big a job to be undertaken quarterly. He also pointed out to me that further information about the present size of the caravan population would be obtained in the same census that was begun, I believe, last April.
I entirely accept that the quarterly housing figures cannot be complete, and also that they should be regarded as a measure of the total achievement of Government and local authorities together against a target that has been set in advance, but I should have thought that in that case the number of mobile homes is a more important indicator than some other figures given; as, for example, the number of pre-fabs., which must be at least as much trouble to collect. It would be quite simple for local authorities to require site operators who have received licences from them to submit returns showing the number of


pitches occupied at the end of the quarter as a condition of the award of a site licence.
Even in the absence of reliable figures, we can say that residential caravanning is increasing to an extent at which it must be taken into account by the Government in their long-term planning, and also that their rather laissez-faire attitude to conditions on the sites must be replaced by a positive concern for the welfare of people who have chosen this way of life. So far, I have found the Minister long on sympathy and short on constructive proposals. He and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary always appreciate problems which we put to them, but they have always found some objection to every suggestion I have made so far about how these problems might be solved.
In particular the Parliamentary Secretary does not think that local authorities need to be reminded of their powers under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, to require operators to improve their sites and to install basic amenities. While it is no doubt true that since the 1960 Act there has been a substantial and marked improvement in average standards and the best sites provide a living environment which would be the envy of many people living in permanent houses, there is still a very large number of sites which do not measure up to the Ministry's model standards. Local authorities vary widely in the amount of effort they make to enforce standards and raise them to the model provided by the Government.
According to a recent survey carried out by Social Survey Gallup Polls Ltd. for the Consumer Council, no fewer than one in three of the people who live in caravans think they have cause for complaint about the facilities provided. I have had many letters from all parts of the country drawing attention to conditions on particular sites. In some cases I have written to the Minister drawing his attention to the allegations made and I believe that the Consumer Council has sent him a long list of complaints made as a result of the survey which it undertook.
I do not think there is much point in giving a long list of further examples, but so that the House may see that some of these sites are as bad as any urban slum,

I will quote a description of one site given in an article by Mr. William Rankine in the News of the World on 5th June. This site is the Mytchett Farm Caravan Site near Camberley, Surrey. The article said:
On the credit side you could say the residents have fresh running water—if they care to trek from their vans along unmade roads and across mud to communal water taps scattered about the grounds.
But that's about the extent of amenities on this site, where 70 or 80 families live and pay £1 a week to park their own vans.
The site has been used for more than 10 years—plenty of time, you might think, for improvements to be made. But modern amenities are totally lacking. There is no electricity supply.
The vans are lit by Calor gas or oil lamps. And though in wet weather the grounds are like an Army assualt course, there is no lighting.
There are no lavatories, no baths, no showers, no laundry facilities, no effective sewerage or drainage, no concrete bases for the vans.
That site is not by any means unique, so I think that a case can be made for the Minister to draw the attention of local authorities to their powers under the Act to increase standards. I ask him to think about that again.
There are probably many more unlicensed sites than we imagine. Mr. Rankine drew attention to these in his article. Local authorities may not wish to require unlicensed operators to improve standards, because by so doing they would countenance those operators. If the Parliamentary Secretary has read the series of articles by Mr. Rankine, he may have noticed what was said about unlicensed sites at Beoley Mill, in the Red-ditch area. Mr. Rankine says that those vans have been on the site for two years. One would like to know why no action was taken against them in view of the fact that the water supply had been condemned by the local authorities.
This illustrates that perhaps the powers of local authorities to take action against unauthorised sites are not as strong as one would like them to be. If we are to raise standards it must be a two-edged approach—one, to persuade local authorities to use powers for the licensed sites and, two, to make sure that they have powers to eliminate sites which do not have a licence. In almost every case I know of sites without proper amenities they are not operated by members of the National Caravan Council or the National Federation of Site Operators. Where they


are, one finds that probably they have only recently been taken over by a member of one of these organisations and that improvements are scheduled by the member. Both these bodies are determined to raise the standards and eliminate these squalid rural slums that still exist, though I believe that they are far too optimistic about the prospects of achieving this on a voluntary basis.
In the same way, the National Caravan Council and the National Federation of Site Operators have been trying to secure the acceptance on a voluntary basis of a code of conduct to govern the relationship between the site operator and the caravan resident. They believe that there should be written agreements between the parties and they have drafted a model form of agreement which they recommend should be used by their members.
The House may be surprised to learn that, according to the Consumer Council survey which I mentioned earlier, 55 per cent. of caravan residents have no written agreement whatsoever, and here is another example of the inferior position of caravan dwellers as compared with the tenants of rented properties who have to be provided, by law, with the terms of their tenancy in a rent book.
The site operators organisations also recommend that nobody should be evicted provided he pays his rent and observes the conditions of his licence, and they say that, if it does become necessary to evict, the site operator should give not less than 28 days' notice. They also say that no premium should be charged for entry on to the site by a new resident because of the scarcity value of the pitch.
These are wholly desirable objectives which should be given every possible encouragement by the Government. Some of us believe that we should go even further than these organisations in protecting the licensee, but under the law as it now stands he is without any protection whatsoever, other than what the site operator is prepared to give him voluntarily.
It is not as uncommon as the trade associations believe, I think, for caravan

residents to be evicted arbitrarily by the more disreputable site operators. Just as with the Milner Holland findings on private rented property, here in the case of caravan dwellers we find that the fear of arbitrary eviction is just as important as the actual happening itself.
One finds in correspondence with caravan dwellers that they are prepared to accept the most appalling conditions without complaining in public, simply because of this fear of eviction. I can show the Minister many letters I have received from caravan residents which end by imploring me not to quote their names in public in case the site operator took reprisals against them.
It is even more usual for large premiums to be demanded for entry on to a site, which families desperate for accommodation will be prepared to pay, while at the same time the operator may be pocketing a commission from the firm which has sold the caravan to the resident coming on to the site. But when the same family is forced to leave, not an penny is normally returned to them.
Let me give an example from my own constituency—and the Minister knows of this one because I have written to him about it before. The Restavon caravan site at Berry's Green is operated by a Mr. Jack Stevens of the Slough Caravan Centre and this gentleman has been charging £150 key money for a caravan coming on to the site. The Minister has told me that nothing can be done to counter this activity by Mr. Stevens. But I should like to mention another matter. Mr. Stevens is charging 4d. a unit for electricity despite the fact that since 1st July, 1965, the maximum price at which electricity may be resold is supposed to be l·95d. The site operator in this case is extorting from his victims more than twice the maximum permitted charge for electricity. In the Consumer Council survey we have evidence to show that overcharging at over three times the maximum permitted resale price is not unknown.
At one time when I made these complaints, the Ministry of Power asked me to send evidence, but I stopped doing that because there is no point in it with regard to caravan residents. There is nothing to prevent the site operator from increasing the plot charges that he makes to his residents to recoup himself for any


refunds that he has to make on the electricity charges. Thus, when the Resale of Electricity Order came into operation last July, many operators who observed it not only increased their charges to cover the loss of money on electricity but at the same time, added a bit of extra profit for themselves. Again, I have sent the Joint Parliamentary Secretary examples of this.
Yet another excuse which is frequently used for raising plot charges is that the rates levied on the site as a whole have been increased. In this case, the resident has no means of knowing whether he is merely being asked to pay the actual amount of the increase in rates or whether the site operator's profit has been put up as well.
I believe, therefore, that the decision of the Court of Appeal earlier this year that a caravan is a hereditament which can be assessed separately for rates will be to the long-term advantage of the caravan population. It will mean that the caravanner knows exactly how much he should pay as an increase when the rates are increased by the local authority. It will also particularly benefit the less-well-off caravanner, who will now, for the first time, be able to apply for a rate rebate under the legislation recently passed by the House.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me about this matter on 18th May and said that it would be up to the valuation officers of the Inland Revenue rather than the rating authorities to make the running on individual rating of caravans. Whilst I appreciate that, I think that his right hon. Friend the Minister has some responsibility, because it would be quite unfair if valuation officers in one part of the country were to rate caravans individually whilst in another area they were still on site lists and, therefore, certain caravan residents were not able to obtain the advantage of the rate rebates, which I want to see extended as rapidly as possible to the caravan population as a whole.
There is one further question of great importance to which I would like a reply tonight. I have shown that the caravan resident has no protection against the imposition of higher rents whether or not

they are justified by increases in cost. I should like to know from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether the prices and incomes standstill will apply to the plot rents. It would be most unfair if the Government's policy of a rent standstill did not apply to the 300,000 peope who live in caravans when council house tenants have their rent standstill and people who live in private rented accommodation have the protection of the Rent Acts.
The hon. Gentleman may remember that in Standing Committee on the Rent Bill in June last year, he told me that the more I kicked him in the pants about this problem the better he felt, because it kept him alive to the importance of it. Since then, as he knows, I have on a number of occasions sought with him to find solutions that both of us could accept without the use of physical violence. In the meanwhile, a great deal of additional evidence has been published, in particular the survey by the Consumer Council which I mentioned. Tonight I have reminded the hon. Gentleman of the many facets of this question to which answers are still awaited by 300,000 people.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate in saying that the survey has been published.

Mr. Lubbock: I am sorry. In Focus the Consumer Council gave a fairly full summary of the evidence which it has obtained in the survey.
I was saying that I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to answer some of the questions that we have been discussing during the past year since the Rent Act, when I first began to raise the important problems of caravanners. I hope that this morning he will at least be able to give me some encouragement to continue to seek a fair and equitable deal for the caravan residents of Britain.

3.50 a.m.

Mr. Albert Murray: It would be helpful to hon. Members if the Minister could answer not only some of the questions put by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) but some of those that I shall put to him.
Since the war, residential caravanning has grown enormously in this country. At one time, many of us thought only of gypsies when we thought of caravans, but this way of living is growing year by year, and caravans are not being filled just by people who cannot find anywhere else to live—although there are a great many of those—but are now being used by people who prefer to live in them.
There are two very large caravan sites in my constituency, one with over 360 caravans and the other with about 280. On my visits to these sites I find a growing number of people who have moved from their own houses because they prefer to live in a caravan. The cost of these caravans can be anything up to £1,800.
Those who spend their lives in caravans have not the same protection as those living in rented accommodation. We are not certain, even now, how many people are resident in caravans on caravan sites. These people are an underprivileged group. They have not the protection of the Rent Act; they have not the possibility at present, it seems, of obtaining rate rebates; and they have not the facility of a person who lives in rented accommodation to be able to claim without fear that he is being overcharged for electricity.
The hon. Member for Orpington said that some of his constituents were being charged 4d. per unit. During my dealings with caravan operators, some of my constituents raised the point that they were being charged 7½d. per unit. After long negotiations with the operators, I got the price down to the maximum resale price of l·95d. per unit. Just after this, the residents of the caravan site received a letter pointing out that there had been changes in the prices that could be charged—it did not say that that there had been over-charging—and after the prices were regularised the tenants found that their rents had been increased. This is the difficulty that these people face.
If the site operator had decided that he would not lower the price of 7½d. per unit, what would have been the position of the tenants? They could have brought a civil action in the courts. But,

because they do not have the protection which tenants in houses have against eviction, they cannot do that. Nobody else can take action on their behalf. I have had talks with the Minister about this problem, and I have sheaves of letters from the Ministry of Power about it.
I was told by the site operator with whom I took the matter up,
We have checked with the National Caravan Federation and find that our new charges are still well below any other site in the country, few of whom appeared to consider the Board's circular to apply to them in any case".
Thus, the law is being flouted by site operators, but the tenants fear to take action because they know that there is the chance of being evicted. Even if they did take action and were successful, they would then find the counterbalance going up the other way, with an increase in rents.
The situation is much the same when there is a rating revaluation. The tenants have a bulk charge, as it were, passed on. Their rents are just "upped" by 2s. or 2s. 6d. without regard to the size of their caravans or their particular circumstances.
Often, there is a "tied" grocer on a site. I take this information mainly from the Consumer Council, though I have had correspondence about it. Only a certain grocer, baker or milkman is allowed on a site because some consideration has passed between the site operator and the trader, and the arrangement is that he will have a monopoly.
Like the hon. Member for Orpington, I have had people writing to me about their problems and then saying, "Please do not mention my name in any letters you write because I am afraid it may mean our being removed from the site".
The position is serious. I want the Minister to give careful attention to it, and, perhaps, make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the recent changes in hire-purchase regulations. I hope that residential caravans which are not towable but have to be moved by lorry will not be affected by the changed requirements for hire-purchase repayments.
The people who live on residential caravan sites are under-privileged. They


are expected to pay their taxes. As politicians, we ask them to play their democratic part in our society. This House of Commons should ensure that they have the benefits of that society.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: Mr. John Pardoe (Cornwall, North) rose——

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) seeking to speak on this topic?

Mr. Pardoe: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will be very brief. There are one or two questions which I want to raise on the subject as it relates to Cornwall and the coastal strips.
It seems to me that there is a need for further regulations governing the use of caravans, and they should be threefold: first, to protect the residential tenant so far as rent, security of tenure and conditions generally are concerned; secondly, to offer the touring caravanner proper facilities; and, thirdly, to preserve certain aesthetic standards of the English countryside.
When one tries to get to the root of the regulations governing the rights of caravan dwellers, one comes up against a blank wall. There do not seem to be very many regulations. Caravan dwellers are relatively unprotected, and my questions arise out of a desire to inform them of their rights and the sheer inability which I have found to find out what they are.
The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, gives local authorities certain powers. However, I think that it gives them the wrong ones. For example, in paragraph 3 of the First Schedule, owners of land of five acres or more are allowed to have three vans on their land for not more than 28 days in any one year", which need not be consecutive. It is quite impossible for any local authority, whatever degree of supervision it exercises, to count up the 28 days in any one year and exactly the number of three vans, and ensure that the law is observed. Indeed, it does not appear to matter very much if it is not. It seems strange that we should pass an Act with that kind of ruling in it which cannot be put into practice.
Local authorities have the right to enter caravan sites and order all sorts

of things. A recent example of the exercise of the power was where a local authority moved into a quiet caravan site and demanded that all the tenants should remove the little wattle fences which they had put round their gardens. As they were only about 18 inches high and quite inoffensive, I think that this kind of power is not the sort of thing that is needed.
However, when one wants to establish what the rents of caravan sites are, one finds oneself up against an entirely different problem. Recently I wrote to a local authority asking for advice on the matter, and its clerk was unable to give me any information. He said he had made inquiries about rents and had found that owners and owners' solicitors took the attitude that it had nothing to do with the council and withheld the information.
One example of the rent problem which has come to my notice recently is where, on one caravan site, the rent for the actual block of concrete on which a van stands has increased since 1962 from 18s. to 36s. a week. Certain improvements have been made to the site, the park and the facilities offered, but that represents a 100 per cent. increase in four years. It has come about by four separate increases, and the tenants have not been given adequate reasons for them. There seems to be a strong case for the protection of the tenant so that he knows why his rent is being increased and to whom he can appeal. At the moment, there is no one to whom he can appeal.
After all, there is a shortage of caravan sites. It has been created by Government action, by the planning authorities and by the sheer necessity to get planning permission. As in all forms of rationing, it seems to me that it is important for the Government to exercise price control.
There is also the problem of evictions from sites. This is something which has been mentioned, and one particular case which I have come across several times is where a local authority exercises power to close down a site because it does not have the right permission or is overcrowded or has not the right facilities.
When the local authority exercises its right to close down a site or reduce the


number of caravans on it, the tenants, who have had no idea that there was infringement of the regulations and had been paying their rent, get no form of compensation from the owners. If owners have been infringing the regulations and thereby inconvenience tenants by having to throw them out on the instructions of the local authority, the tenants should a least be able to get them to pay the cost of removals—always providing that they can find another site to move to.
On the whole, the conditions of various caravan sites, certainly in Cornwall, are well supervised and the tourist is well catered for. He can expect in Cornwall model standards rigidly enforced by the local authorities. As for aesthetic standards, we do not want the Cornish coast to become the coastal slum that some parts of the South of England have become.
One of the problems is that of user rights, whereby there is no kind of enforcement over people who have had caravans on a piece of land for a very long time. It might help if the Government looked at this again and considered whether just because someone has had the privilege of having a caravan on their farm for several years they should be able to go on exercising the right without any appeal by the local authority.
I hope the Minister will pay some attention to the loopholes in the 1960 Act, some of which he has received representations about from the Rural District Councils Association and the County Councils Association recently. The best supervision tenants could have is to be made fully aware of their rights and I hope that from this debate, which has been useful for what has been called an under-privileged section of the community, we shall have a reply which will give us the conditions we can stand by in giving these people a better deal.

4.4 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): If one could at any time be pleased to be talking on any subject at this hour I should be pleased to be talking to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr.

Lubbock) about caravans, about which he has been quite right in assiduously pressing for action. I cannot do much more than touch on some of the points he raised and give him some idea of what my right hon. Friend's views are.
The basic problem is of the attitude one takes about caravans as a way of life. Are they to be a permanent contribution or are they only a temporary substitute for housing which is likely to disappear when the housing shortage disappears? According to the report the hon. Gentleman quoted, 36 per cent. of the people interviewed—a little over one-third—said they liked life in caravans while 58 per cent.—slightly over half—among the older people were quite content to be in caravans.
This is one of the difficult things to discover, yet it governs both the selection of sites and the length of permission given for them. If the planning authority gives, as it is entitled to do, a short permission because it regards sites as temporary, it prevents the site owner from spending a lot of money on it and by creating insecurity allows it to deteriorate in quality.
My right hon. Friend has been encouraging planning authorities, where sites are reasonably good from the point of view of amenity and convenience, rather than play a cat-and-mouse game by granting temporary permissions one after the other, to grant permission for long periods, or for ever.
There are provisions in the planning laws for planning authorities to stop bad sites being used, even though there are user rights, but this means compensation, which can often be very heavy.
The hon. Member for Orpington said that since the 1960 Act was passed there had been a substantial and marked improvement in conditions. It is only fair to say that neither myself nor his hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) are responsible for the weaknesses of that Act. It does need tightening up and I hope that we can do this, but I should not like to begin legislation to this end until we have solved the problem of security of tenure, which is so closely linked with this problem of standards.
The hon. Member for Orpington quoted the model form of agreement and


said that over half the people had no written agreement. I do not know how far occupiers of caravan sites want written agreements. It does not necessarily follow that the reason that they do not have any is the fault only of the site operator. It may be that they prefer not to commit themselves because an agreement is binding both ways. They may not wish to be bound, because they are liable to have to move quickly, or for some other reason.
If the Caravan Council could improve its present model agreement—which is not bad but which could be improved—and make it a basis of good practice, recognised by all the best site operators then it would be easier to use legislation to enforce it. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the profit on things such as the sale of caravans, shops, etc. Here there is the dilemma that, if one is to spend money on equipping a site, improving amenities and so on, and if the licensing authority is to be tough in enforcing licensing conditions, it has to get the money back to pay for such things. That means that the charges for the site go up and complaints are then made that they are exorbitant.
That is one of the reasons for the failure of full licensing control to bite. Local authorities are a little nervous about creating a situation in which charges will go up steeply. There is the further difficulty that if the site operator packs up and says that he cannot work under such conditions one loses the site and people become homeless.
The hon. Member asked about rates, and the position here is—and I agree with him that caravans should be treated as separate hereditaments—that not only will caravans get rate rebate, but they will also qualify for the domestic element; that is, that part of the new local government grant which goes to domestic ratepayers. We have been arguing about that upstairs, and no doubt we shall argue more about it on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member quoted some cases of complaint, and said that the Government should do more.

Mr. Lubbock: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of rates, would he say why, if the Inland Revenue in some areas can work faster and get the

caravans on to the lists and the people in those areas will be able to claim rate rebates, something cannot be done for those areas where the rating officers work more slowly?

Mr. MacColl: There are powers available, but one has to recognise that one of the problems is the shortage of valuers. That was one reason why we had to postpone revaluation. That caravans are hereditaments was a decision of the courts. I am not sure that we are out of time, but it was a recent decision, and it is surely a little early to say that there will be anomalies. However, that is something which we shall watch.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the licensing conditions and I agree that in some cases the licensing authorities may have been slack, but, in some cases, they have been in a dilemma. We must remember that we are not dealing with a fixed position. There are often long periods of arguing and bargaining. I knew of a case where the access road was appalling, but ownership was eventually established, and the road was improved and the people on the site expressed themselves as satisfied. The majority thought that the lavatory arrangements were satisfactory or very satisfactory, and 66 per cent. said that they had no complaints and, of those with complaints, 10 per cent said that they did not complain through fear of eviction.
There is then the question of security of tenure. This recalls a site at Waltham Abbey, where the owner said that he did not think that there should be security of tenure because caravan life had an intimacy about it so that a bad tenant could cause a lot of trouble. That might be an argument for saying that one should not use the machinery of the Rent Act. Perhaps more suitable would be machinery similar to that given for furnished accommodation which allows for the provision of services as well as the accommodation.
I am looking forward to the publication of the survey in full. It has not yet been published in full but, when it is, it will make a very useful contribution to getting some sort of idea of the kind of thing we could put into legislation. We cannot at present promise any specific date because of the


state of the legislative programme, but we are anxious to do something. We are giving a good deal of thought about how best to tackle this.
The hon. Gentleman also asked if the prices and incomes policy would apply to pitch fees. Inasmuch as the charges are for services or for rent of land I would have thought that they came within Part IV of the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for the points they have raised. The detailed cases they quoted I will consider, and if I have any further information to give them I will write to them in detail about those cases.

INDUSTRY (REDEPLOYMENT)

4.20 a.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: It is against the background of the Government's recent economic measures that I wish to raise the question of the provision of training and retraining places in connection with the redeployment of industry. I take the Government at their word—that it will be a question of redeployment rather than dismal, purposeless unemployment; but whether or not it is a genuine and constructive redeployment depends almost entirely upon the extent of the facilities for training and retraining.
It is not my purpose to examine or criticise the general structure and pattern of the Government's industrial training schemes. I recognise that they inherited a pretty poor position. This country was late off the mark under the last Administration, compared with other industrial countries, and the Government have not had an easy job. But I am concerned with the new timing of their various measures, particularly in relation to the coming winter and the early months of 1967. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are desperately anxious to avoid the appalling situation which arose at the time of the last serious economic squeeze in 1962 when, in the middle of that year—just when there was scope for redeployment and there was time and people available for retraining—the number of Government training centres sank to its lowest figure of 13, compared with the

80 which there had been a few years before. In that case the timing was as wrong as it could have been, and this is an error which we must be sure is not repeated.
At a time when everybody concerned in the industrial affairs of this country has to change gear very rapidly we are entitled to know how fast the Ministry of Labour is changing gear with its training programme. In that connection I was somewhat concerned, listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the economic affairs debate on 26th July, to hear him say:
By the end of 1967 the total number of training centres that will be in existence will be able to turn out 15,000 trained men a year, from some 8,000 places."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1478.]
Fifteen thousand trained men a year, by the end of 1967, will bring us into line with the figure that Sweden, with its much smaller population, reached in 1960–61.
What concerns me more than that comparison is the reference to the end of 1967, which is an almost irrelevant date having regard to the unemployment that we shall face this winter. I was glad and encouraged to see in the Press this morning the announcement that it is intended to expand the number of places at the two Government instructor training colleges at Glasgow and Letchworth, but to many of our industrial workers Glasgow and Letchworth are a long way away, and I should have thought that the urgent thing in the present circumstances was to seek out as many as possible of what we might call ready-made instructors—experienced men who, in their own words, have had an experience of training people. Some have experience of training going gack to the war. I hope that the Minister, with his regional and local officers will try to discover these invaluable people, on the "grapevine", if necessary, and tempt them into instruction. Many will require part-time training to bring their instructional skills up to date. It is not likely that many will drop their existing jobs immediately to make such a drastic change of career.
I hope that part-time facilities for training industrial workers as instructors will be announced soon and that they will be given special terms of secondment so that they may have security and


know that, with reflation, they will be able to return to their existing shopfloor jobs.
As to the use of premises, the location of the 30 Government training centres is not very inspiring for some parts of the country. It does not give much hope to people thrown out of work in Oldham, Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge and Glossop. South-East Lancashire, North Derbyshire and East Cheshire are not well provided for. Industrial premises in those areas might become free during the winter—I hope not to any great extent—because of the lack of orders. If so, I hope that the Ministry will take over some as Government training centres.
Thirty is not enough to meet the need. The Minister has not released figures comparing the number of applicants with the number of places at the centres, but, in the Observer on 31st July this year, David Howarth wrote that the centres have already become "dramatically over-subscribed" in the last two years. If that is so, it is not difficult to imagine how over-subscribed they will become in the months ahead.
The present plan is to try to cover all industry with the industrial training boards by some time in 1968. I hope that this policy can be accelerated, in view of the dramatic change on the economic front, and that, although their hands are full with training young people, the boards can also quickly turn their attention to adult retraining, which has always been part of their responsibility—admittedly, a very difficult one.
One hopes that these boards, to which many industrialists give a good deal of voluntary time, will develop the sort of approach which the Department of Education and Science has built up through its inspectors of schools, of knowing which are the good training centres and the good men in each field, knowing where good work is being done, and using those places as examples to others.
Above all, I hope that the Minister will leave the nation in no doubt that one of the ways in which this ill wind may blow some good is that this winter we can start a real surge forward with the provision of day and block release for people under the age of 18—the hope which was proclaimed in the 1944 Edu-

cation Act which has been so long delayed. The last figures which I have been able to unearth are that in 1964 there were about 276,000 people under the age of 18 on day or block release, which was only 19 per cent. of the potential total. There may be later figures than that, but I have not been able to discover them. Even allowing for some increase since 1964, the time is surely ripe for an enormous advance on this front, and the time and manpower which is to be going spare this winter will at least give the nation an opportunity to do this.
I am obliged to the Minister for being here to deal with these matters, but he is well aware that it is not only a question of telling the House what his plans are; he must also tell the nation. There is no doubt that at the moment there is a good deal of scepticism about the use which can be made of this economic pause. In the economic affairs debate of 26th July from which I quoted, the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), speaking from the Government side of the House said,
The notion that retraining facilities or even plans for them are available is also poppycock."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1549.]
I hope that what the Minister tells us this morning will give the lie to that statement and will let the nation know that this ill wind can at least afford some good for those in existing employment who are willing to learn new skills and for young people who are willing patiently to take a longer training than previous generations have taken.

4.37 a.m.

Mr. Philip Holland: At this late hour, with many more matters to be discussed, I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) has raised an issue which is important, topical and urgent—important because the future industrial potential of the country and its capacity to earn its living in a highly Competitive world must depend basically on training in all its aspects; topical in the new situation created by the current shift in Government policy which demands the contraction of certain large industries and the expansion of others; and urgent because if the proposed Government measures are to work they will


result in a marked increase in unemployment. According to some estimates this would be about 250,000 extra unemployed by Christmas.
If these people are not to join the ranks of the long-term unemployed, facilities for their retraining must be available in time. When I refer to long-term unemployed, I am referring to a period in excess of 12 weeks, because I understand that employment exchanges find it increasingly difficult to place people who have been out of work for 12 weeks or longer, because these people become accustomed to the lower standard of living and are less willing to take new jobs. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind as the sort of deadline which is an absolute maximum.
The problem of redeployment is twofold. Increased training facilities must be provided in those industries now scheduled for expansion for a larger intake of school leavers and other young entrants to the industry. The Industrial Training Act, 1964, is already beginning to be effective in those industries where industrial training boards have been set up and it is also having an effect in stimulating the provision of more advanced training courses. The other part of the problem, which is much more difficult, is to persuade people in established jobs to face up to the problems of change and to provide adequate retraining to fit them for the sort of new jobs for which they have the aptitude and the capacity.
Responsibility for much of this must fall on the Government, first to provide retraining centres in sufficient numbers and of sufficient capacity; secondly, to provide adequate incentives to people to accept retraining in new skills; and, thirdly, to provide a jobs advisory service that is both well informed and practical. People who have lived their working lives in one occupation need sympathetic and practical advice if they are expected to move in what must be to them something of the unknown. Not only is an expansion of retraining centres needed, but more efficient use of the existing facilities could be achieved.
So much development is taking place these days in educational and training

techniques—such as the use of programmed instruction, visual aids, electronic devices and so on—that undoubtedly the time taken in training at Government centres and elsewhere could be condensed with the use of these aids without loss of efficiency. I hope that the Minister has an open mind to these possibilities and that he will adopt whatever aids are developed, so long as effective training is achieved.
On that basis, three fundamental questions face the Minister. First, is a review of teaching in Government establishments being carried out and, if not, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to set up an advisory body to keep training methods under review? Secondly, what provision is being made for the additional 250,000 people requiring training or retraining by the end of this year? Thirdly, what preparations have been made to ensure that the best advice is available to these people, based on the sort of training that will be available to them in the light of their circumstances and experience to date?
My hon. Friends and I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman fully recognises the importance of all these matters and is taking some steps to deal with them. But we do doubt, on the information we have so far, that the measures already taken or proposed by the Government will be adequate to the task by the end of this year.

4.38 a.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) for raising this matter, although at this hour time is not available for the House to fully discuss a subject that is as important as anything facing this country. Perhaps on another occasion, when ample time is available, we will be able to go into all the facets of this issue.
The hon. Gentleman dealt with the history of this matter and recalled what happened in 1962. I never find it a joy to have inquests on this sort of topic. I will say only that it was a pity that so much went by the board in 1961 and 1962. There was, at that time, a somewhat small base, so to speak, and in 1963 the exercise of recovery had to take place; and the hon. Gentleman will recall that in April, 1963, the then Conservative Government announced plans


for more than doubling the number of Government training centres. All the centres in that plan had started training by the end of last year, although three of them were not sufficiently activated until the early part of this year, when I formally opened them.
It is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggested to create, staff and set in motion a Government training centre. He seemed to suggest that it could be done overnight. With the best will in the world, if such a centre is to be really efficient, the procedures involved in buying the land, staffing and so on takes about two years to complete. However, I assure the House that we are trying as rapidly as we can to overcome this delay.
To turn to more recent events, in February, 1965, I announced plans for the establishment of two more centres. That created at Plymouth will start taking trainees this autumn, and that for the Medway towns, where there was great difficulty in finding a site, will start taking trainees early in 1967. In June, 1965, I announced plans for the further expansion of existing centres, and for new centres at Granton, Killingworth, Denton, Coventry, Norwich and Lancing. Of these, Denton took in its first trainees at the end of June, and most of the others should come into stream, as it were, in about a year's time, and all of them by the end of 1967.
I must repeat that there is a limit to the pace at which existing centres can be expanded or new ones opened. The first limitation—and I only mention it in passing in view of the comments made so often about the disastrous increase in the number of civil servants—is the planning capacity of my own technical staff and the appropriate staffs of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. We all know that these staffs have now been fully stretched in respect of the current expansion programme, and I must tell the hon. Member that I cannot see how, before another two or three months have passed, I can safely require my own people—who are up to their necks, as it were, at present—to undertake further detailed planning without risking dislocation of the current expansion programme.
A more intractable limitation is the provision of the additional staff at the centres. To conduct the concentrated

and accelerated vocational training of adults so as to give them in six months the basic skills acquired by a full apprenticeship requires a very high degree of expertise. I pay my tribute to those who have left industry as they have known it in order to come to the training centres and perform something almost of the nature of a miracle, so that employers and trade unionists are beginning to appreciate what can be done in that six months. It is an awakening by the employers and the trade unionists, and length of apprenticeship training is being seen in a different light because of the efforts of those who are, in six months, doing this task.
Even longer than the time needed to train instructors is the time taken to train a competent centre manager. It is a very highly-skilled job to be a manager of a Government training centre, where one is gathering in men who, in many cases, did not want to be retrained in the sense that they did not want to leave behind them their original skills. There are all the inevitable human relationship problems. It is the task of an expert to be a good centre manager. The hon. Member referred to drawing men in from industry. It would be easy to revitalise them, as they were, and refurbish their knowledge, but one of our difficulties is to find the right men to do this work, because it is not just a question of knowing their skill but of how to handle men trained in other ways. That is one of our principal difficulties.
As I have said, the expansion started from a fairly narrow base in 1963. There were then 13 centres; there are now 31 and, by the end of 1967 there will be 38 centres. Our managerial resources, actual and potential, are already severely stretched, and it would be disastrous for us if we risked inefficiency in this training. If the standard of the end product—the trainee—were to go down we would forfeit the confidence which has been built up both of the employers and of the trade unions. Therefore, we have to be particularly delicate and careful about the selection of the men who come largely from industry to help us in this task.
As the hon. Member mentioned, the present 31 centres have a total of more than 6,000 training places. By the end


of 1967 the 38 centres with 8,000 training places will have a capacity to produce 15,000 trained men a year. It has been said that there are long waiting lists. There are; pressure for training places is increasing. There are good prospects in some areas, but not in all. There is very little spare capacity in Government training centres at present. One of the things which bothers me a little, and I do not know how we can overcome it, is that our experience of run downs in individual industries has not in the past led to dramatic increases in the demand for G.T.C. training.
One would have thought that the mining industry would be in the forefront of industries wanting places, but in the last three-and-a-half years there have been fewer than 500 applications for training from coal miners, and by no means all were from miners who could strictly be considered redundant. Only half were qualified for training and only about 90 completed training. Over the same period there were only 250 applications from redundant railway-men, both operating and administrative grades, of whom 164 were accepted for training and 66 actually completed training. We have the problem that the run down of industry which we thought would provide the biggest reservoir is not proving that to be the case. We are already giving thought to plans for the further extension of G.T.C. facilities after the current expansion programme has been completed next year.
I turn to a point which the hon. Member made in the last part of his speech. While the Government make a contribution to the pool of skilled manpower by accelerated training of adults, it must be remembered that the great bulk of training in future must be done by the industrial training boards. The great bulk of the skill we shall require must come from the efforts of the industrial training boards. I repeat the hope that the experience we are having in the Government training centres will enable the industrial training boards to learn a lot more about what is required in the apprenticeship system. Both the quality and the quantity of apprentice training will be helped by the training boards. There are 14 already in being and a

further three will be established in the early autumn.
Retraining of semi-skilled workers who change their jobs is undertaken in industry. In development areas my Ministry assists firms which are extending their labour forces by giving financial assistance to training new workers and offering to lend Ministry of Labour instructors to get training started in firms' own premises. We are fully aware of the great necessity for an expansion of this training in all areas. We are limited not only by the physical resources but by the personnel who must man these G.T.Cs.
One of the happiest experiences I have had at the Ministry of Labour has been in the development of the Government training centres, in appreciation of their standards of efficiency, by the co-operation of employers and the increasing cooperation of the trade unions in making use of them. This is an example of how in six months we may do what industry has found necessary in some cases to take three years to do. I appreciate to the full the point made by the hon. Member that there is need for a concentrated effort within the G.T.Cs. and throughout the industrial training boards—not only because we want to minimise the effects of any unemployment which may arise but because it is very necessary for the future that we have the skilled manpower properly trained in this country—to try to come to terms with the technical revolution that is upon us.

NORTHERN IRELAND

4.50 a.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: At the outset I should apologise to the right hon. Lady who will be replying to this debate for keeping her up to this early hour of the morning. By the same token, I am delighted to see some of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland in the House because if I had not been elected for Belfast, West, they would be at home in their beds.
I understand it is now the practice of my colleagues from Northern Ireland to keep a shadow on me in this House and I only hope they will have an opportunity of speaking in this debate, perhaps to refute some of the assertions


which, in all honesty, I may be forced to make.
I realise that in this House many conventions exist, and I understand that if I were to abide by the rule book all I could discuss during this debate would be defence, foreign affairs, Income Tax and the Post Office.
To me this seems entirely illogical, because the problems which exist in Northern Ireland, and the problems which I will attempt during my term in this House to bring before the notice of the House, are far more serious than can be dealt with by these Ministers. I am not a lawyer and I make no claim to any knowledge of the legal profession, but I deliberately worded the motion I am now discussing on Her Majesty's Government's responsibility in Northern Ireland and my interpretation of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which is the constitution of Northern Ireland. I find that I can put only one interpretation on the words of Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, and these words are:
Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliaments of … Northern Ireland … or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things in Ireland and every part thereof.
I say, Sir, that this gives ultimate and over-riding responsibility to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and as the representative of Belfast, West, as the representative of 26,000 people, I stand here to demand of the British Government that they accept the responsibility which they themselves have written into this Act of 1920.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. Before the hon. Member proceeds any further with that line of argument I had better correct him. Section 75 of the 1920 Act to which he has referred does not confer responsibility on Her Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom over matters within the competence of the Northern Ireland Government. My predecessors in this Chair have ruled repeatedly that matters within the competence of the Northern Ireland Government, and therefore matters for which Her Majesty's Ministers in this House are not responsible, are not subjects for debate in this House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order. In view of your Ruling, I wonder if you could tell me whether, as vast Exchequer subsidies go from this Government to Northern Ireland, we should be in order in giving reasons why these subsidies should not go through?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That would be in order. In so far as subsidies are paid by the United Kingdom Government, the matters relating to the payment, or the desirability of the payment, of those subsidies are matters that can be discussed in this House.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Further to that point of order. Is it not correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say that the jurisdiction of this House is a little wider than that? I quote from page 773 of the current edition of Erskine May, which describes the scope of discussion for Consolidated Fund Bill debates such as this and states:
Thus, whereas the field of debate on the main Consolidated Fund Bill of the year and upon the Appropriation Bill is normally commensurate with the whole range of administrative policy …
It therefore includes not only the mere matter of substance, but the whole background of policy attaching to it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right. All matters of administrative policy within the competence of Her Majesty's Ministers in this country are open to debate on the Third reading of the Bill. But I was explaining to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that he cannot argue in this House an interpretation of Section 75 of the 1920 Act that differs from that which my predecessors have ruled.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Further to the point of order. Am I right in understanding that what you were saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that Section 75 of the 1920 Act does not give, as it says, final and ultimate authority to the Parliament at Westminster, because the Parliament at Stormont is recognised as being subordinate ultimately to the powers of this Westminster Parliament? If I understood you correctly, you were saying that this was not so.
We have always believed that if any Minister gets up at the Dispatch Box in this House, using the powers of Section 75, he can intervene directly in the


operation of the rule of law—such as, for instance, by the Home Secretary—in Northern Ireland. May I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the Home Secretary was satisfied that it was right for him to intervene directly in the affairs of Northern Ireland, he would be the supreme authority delegated with the powers given to him under Section 75. Your Ruling seemed to me to suggest that he does not have that power, but I suggest that Section 75, in anybody's clear interpretation, gives the Minister in this House overriding authority over the Parliament at Stormont.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the confusion that has arisen in the hon. Member's mind is due to the fact that he has failed to distinguish the position between the United Kingdom Parliament and the United Kingdom Government. It is perfectly true that the 1920 Act, in Section 75, which has been quoted, gives this Parliament supreme authority over matters in Northern Ireland and enables the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate on matters affecting Northern Ireland. On the other hand, the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government as regards matters in Northern Ireland is limited and Her Majesty's Ministers in this country have no responsibility for matters which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ministers—the Government—of Northern Ireland.
Therefore, because in respect of those matters there is no Ministerial responsibility in this House, it is not open on the Third Reading of the Bill to raise matters for which Her Majesty's Ministers in this country are not responsible.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: Further to the point of order. As I understand the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Parliament has ultimate responsibility for matters affecting Northern Ireland. In a Ruling on 3rd May, 1923, which is cited in Erskine May, Mr. Speaker said:
With regard to those subjects which have been delegated to the Government of Northern Ireland, questions must be asked of Ministers in Northern Ireland, and not in this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1923; Vol. 163, c. 1624.]
Bearing in mind that Members of this House, as I understand it, are, as Members of this Parliament, exercising ulti-

mate responsibility, I now seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to how it is possible for Members of this Parliament to put questions to the Government of Northern Ireland in the way suggested in Mr. Speaker's Ruling in 1923.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously it is not possible to put questions to Her Majesty's Ministers in Northern Ireland. It is open to Members of this House as a legislature to promote legislation affecting Northern Ireland, but today we are discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill. Hon. Members in this debate are entitled before voting on the Third Reading to discuss matters of administration for which United Kingdom Ministers are responsible, but since United Kingdom Ministers are not responsible for matters that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Government, matters of that kind cannot be raised in this debate.

Mr. McNamara: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With regard to the point you made, am I entitled to say that, as this Parliament votes money to the Northern Ireland Government, and I believe that Ministers in the Northern Ireland Parliament exercise their control over local government franchise, for example, wrongly—I could illustrate this—we should not vote that money to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that it will be very convenient if we pursue hypothetical questions about precisely what can and cannot be discussed in the debate. I have indicated to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that he cannot proceed on the interpretation which he has given to Section 75, because that is in conflict with established authority and a number of previous Rulings given by occupants of this Chair. I shall follow any speeches made by hon. Members and tell them if they transgress the bounds of what is in order in this debate.

Mr. Fitt: Whilst the questions raised by my hon. Friends may be hypothetical, the problems which exist in Northern Ireland are anything but hypothetical, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They are only too concrete, and I, with my hon. Friends,


intend to bring them before this Parliament on every possible occasion and, through it, before the British people.
We are discussing a Bill which makes way for the payment of massive subventions of British taxpayers' money, money of the constituents of my hon. Friends who are paying Income Tax to the Treasury which in turn is paid out to the Northern Ireland Government, but none of my hon. Friends can question how that money is spent. That is an absolutely farcical situation.
I wish to make one or two points which I am sure will be within the rules of order, first on the question of the Representation of the People Act as it applies to Northern Ireland. I was elected to this House under the same Act of Parliament as every other hon. Member. But the atmosphere under which I was elected was completely different from that which existed in any other constituency in the United Kingdom.
The returning officer in Northern Ireland is responsible for the running of elections in Northern Ireland, but the payment comes from the pockets of the British taxpayer. Therefore, I believe that I am quite in order in discussing the activities of the returning officer in Northern Ireland in connection with the 12 seats which return hon. Members to this House.
Why have the British Government since the 1920s failed to have even an observer in Northern Ireland when elections were taking place to elect hon. Members to this House? Two years ago, we heard of the atmosphere which prevailed in Smethwick, but in Northern Ireland this atmosphere has prevailed since 1920, and particularly in the constituency of West Belfast which I represent. The British people showed their concern about the attitude adopted by one of the candidates at Smethwick at the 1964 election. But no voice has been raised against the Unionist Members, the Unionist Government and the Unionist returning officer in Northern Ireland for the practices which have taken place at every election since 1920.
I ask the Minister of State these questions. Why has the returning officer acting as agent of this House, in the past, and up till a few months ago,

deliberately sited polling stations in my constituency in favour of the Unionist candidate? Why have polling stations been sited as far away as possible from the anti-Unionist area? Why has it come about that people who wanted to go to the polling station and vote anti-Unionist were not afforded police protection from being attacked by bigoted mobs?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman pursues this line of argument, I must invite the right hon. Lady to tell me whether the Home Office exercises responsibility over the conduct of elections in Northern Ireland. I should myself have doubted that it did, and, unless the Home Secretary claims to exercise responsibility for the conduct or supervision of elections in Northern Ireland, it will not be in order for the hon. Gentleman to pursue that line of argument.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we to take it from your last observations that, if the Minister were to reply "Yes", the debate would be allowed to continue along the lines so far developed, but that, if she replies "No", you will not permit the debate to continue along those lines?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should be guided by anything the right hon. Lady says. But the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is criticising the conduct of returning officers at Parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland and discussing the atmosphere in which those elections take place, and what I am investigating is whether or not the Home Secretary claims to exercise any responsibility for the conduct of returning officers in Northern Ireland. Unless the Home Office does claim to exercise any such responsibility, it is no use asking the right hon. Lady to reply to the matters which the hon. Member for Belfast, West is now raising.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): As I understand the position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the returning officer in Northern Ireland—as with returning officers in every part of the United Kingdom—has sole responsibility for the conduct of the election and is not responsible to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.


There is no distinction as between Northern Ireland and Great Britain but even in Great Britain it is the returning officer who is responsible for the conduct of elections.

Mr. Fitt: If it was found in a constituency in England, Wales or Scotland that a returning officer had failed in his duty, had shown undue bias towards one or other of the political parties, had failed to protect electors in performance of their right and duty to vote, who would be responsible for either censuring that individual or taking against him? Would it be the Home Office? Will the Minister tell us that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. In so far as returning officers or any other members of the public commit breaches of the law which can be investigated by the courts, the courts of the land are the appropriate authorities before which agrieved citizens can bring their complaints. There are several matters which are justiciable in a court but for which no Ministers, either in this country or any other country, have jurisdiction.

Mr. William Hamling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) represents the electors of West Belfast. Surely it is in order for him to raise in this House the grievances of his constituents. I would submit that in raising grievances from his constituents in the House, my hon. Friend is in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have tried to indicate the limits within which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) can quite properly in this debate ventilate the grievances of his constituents. I would not wish to indicate that I wanted to prevent him doing so. All that I am saying is that there is a limit on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers in this country for matters that take place in Northern Ireland, and I am bound by the Rulings of my predecessors to say that I must see that the limits of debate on this matter are observed in accordance with the precedents which have been laid down.

Mr. McGuire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In answer to the

excellent point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), would you not agree that at least the hon. Member for Belfast, West can raise in this House matters relating to his constituency? Would you not agree that your Ruling really means that it is about as useful an exercise as washing your feet with your socks on to send hon. Members here from Northern Ireland if, when they get here, they cannot discuss some of the things which almost prevented them from becoming elected Members of Parliament? It is about as useful an exercise as that.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On 26th May, 1966, I tabled a Question to the Home Secretary in which I asked my right hon. Friend if he would seek discussions with the Northern Ireland Government with a view to legislation to secure the transfer to him of responsibility for the administration in Northern Ireland of elections to the United Kingdom Parliament. My right hon. Friend replied:
The Northern Ireland Government have no functions in relations to elections to the United Kingdom Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 130.]
That would tend to suggest that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) can talk about the actions of the returning officer, as it is not within the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think so. I think that the Question was quite properly addressed to the Home Secretary by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and quite properly answered. There is responsibility on the Government for the promotion, if they think it desirable, of legislation affecting Northern Ireland. But I am sure that the whole House is aware that in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill we cannot possibly introduce matters requiring legislation, whether it affects Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom. We are confined in this debate to matters of administration, and, on those grounds, any matters involving legislation would be out of order completely.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are two matters which I wish to put to you.


First, with regard to the responsibility of Ministers, whilst it is clear that Ministers in Northern Ireland have a certain exclusive jurisdiction and that their administrative acts are not answerable for in this House, is it not proper to consider that there is this aspect to it? This House is responsible for the expenditure of something like £60 million in Northern Ireland this year. Ministers in this House have to decide how much of the finances which come to their Departments are to be allocated to Northern Ireland. They have policies with regard to Northern Ireland. Is it not, therefore, proper to discuss Northern Ireland affairs from the side of the Ministers who are in this House and who decide what proportion of their funds should be allocated to that country?
Secondly, am I correct in saying that, since the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, all the decisions with regard to the relevance of Northern Ireland matters in this House have been confined to the question of the admissibility of formal Questions at Question Time which, again, are confined more to Departmental matters than to matters of general policy which, I respectfully submit, come within the ambit of this debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised two points of order. On the first, there are a number of matters affecting administration in Northern Ireland which can quite properly be raised in this debate. They include, as he indicated, matters relating to subsidies and other payments out of the Consolidated Fund for purposes in Northern Ireland. Matters which indirectly affect trade or employment or unemployment in Northern Ireland have repeatedly been allowed both at Question Time and in debate. But the dividing line must be whether or not there is any Ministerial responsibility in this House.
On the second point, there is no distinction between what is allowable at Question Time and what is allowable in a debate of this kind. The test in all cases must be the limit of Ministerial responsibility, because it should be obvious to all hon. Members that no good purpose is served by hon. Members raising questions about Northern Ireland in this House, either in this debate or

at any time, unless they can direct their questions to some point for which a Minister of the Crown here is responsible and therefore can answer.

Mr. Lubbock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A few minutes ago you ruled that it was not proper for us to discuss questions of returning officers, because the Secretary of State has no responsibility for their conduct, but it was within my recollection that the Secretary of State had power to appoint over certain returning officers in Northern Ireland and I have here the Representation of the People Act, 1949, Section 17(3,b) of which says:
In the case of a constituency wholly contained within the county borough of Belfast or any county
the returning officer shall be
such under-sheriff as the Secretary of State may by order direct.
Surely if the Secretary of State has power to appoint these returning officers it is proper for us to criticise the conduct of those returning officers and show that they should not be appointed by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Home Secretary informs me that the Home Office is not responsible for the conduct of returning officers, either in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, that question cannot arise.

Mr. Fitt: It will be obvious from the concern expressed by my hon. Friends that this matter will be raised again and again during the lifetime of this Parliament until a satisfactory solution is arrived at. During the course of your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you said that we are able to discuss questions of employment and unemployment for which a Minister in this House is responsible, but perhaps I may illustrate my concern by saying that if the electoral law in Northern Ireland were carried out in the democratic manner of every other constituency in the United Kingdom, I have no doubt that it would ensure a different type of representation in this House.
For many years, constituencies in Northern Ireland have been represented by members of the Unionist Party and I have heard some of them speak since I arrived here a few months ago. I heard one hon. Member stating during the


debate on the economic position that the people of Northern Ireland regarded the present Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as an incompetent who had mismanaged the economy and who will go down in history as one of the worst Prime Ministers of the century. I do not know if that is the sort of claptrap that this House has been listening to from Unionist Members over the last few months, but if the hon. Member who made those remarks claims to speak for Northern Ireland, then I am the worshipful master of an Orange Lodge.
It is absolutely ridiculous. I am very concerned about the economy and the discussions which have taken place, and about the deflation which is to be practised in the United Kingdom, particularly when I reflect on the high unemployment figures in many constituencies in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister said that he would regard a figure of 2½ per cent. unemployment as being not intolerable within the context of the present economic situation. Have any of the Unionist Members during their time as representatives in this House illustrated cogently just how serious the unemployment situation is in Northern Ireland?
Let me quote some figures: in Dun-gannon there are 1,044 unemployed, representing 10·1 per cent. of the population; in Enniskillen there are 1,616 unemployed, representing 12·8 per cent.; in Kilkeel there are 479, representing 18·8 per cent.; in Londonderry there are 2,910, representing 10·4 per cent.; in Newcastle there are 644, representing 11·5 per cent.; in Newry there are 2,194, representing 14·5 per cent.; in Omagh there are 1,011 unemployed, representing 10·5 per cent. and in Strabane there are 1,370, representing 16·1 per cent.
These are figures which would never have been brought to the attention of this House by the Unionist Members because none has an Ulster Unionist majority and consequently money disbursed by this Parliament is denied to these areas. These areas are denied any industrial development on the ground that they are not worth it, that they are anti-Unionist and worthy of no consideration. This Parliament hears of these figures and about Short Brothers and Harland. I have as much sympathy as

any Unionist Member over the plight in which it finds itself. I realise that before the end of the year there will be 1,200 unemployed and before the end of next year there will be 4,000 unemployed. As a Socialist I do not want to see any unemployed man in Northern Ireland, irrespective of his religious or political beliefs. This is not so with my Unionist colleagues, who deliberately deny employment to areas in the country because they do not support the Unionist Party. This is a position which should not be tolerated by this Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member again. I merely want to assist him by indicating that in so far as he is, quite properly, discussing unemployment in Northern Ireland, he must expound this in terms of being referable to acts of Her Majesty's Government in this country. He must not introduce matters affecting unemployment that relate to the administrative acts of the Government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt: We have illustrated this time and again, and no doubt I will have to illustrate it again before the conclusion of this debate. The fact is that £60 million of British taxpayers' money is paid annually to the Northern Ireland Parliament, and that Parliament then sets out to attract industry. What is not known is that it attracts that industry to Unionist areas and denies British subjects the right to work. That, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is where the responsibility of this Parliament lies.
I want to speak of unemployment as it at present exists in Northern Ireland and of the effects which deflation might have in the months ahead. Within recent months, the British public and, indeed, this House, were made aware of the true situation existing in Northern Ireland in a way not dreamed of previously. The British public is still largely unaware of what is happening in Northern Ireland, and I am supported in this contention by none other than the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who gave a most stupid Press conference the other day.

The Deputy Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that no Minister in this House has any responsibility for what the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland may say.

Mr. Fitt: I could not agree with you more, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland stated that it is hard to explain things to an Englishman. What an admission for the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. That Prime Minister is representative of a party which claims to be so much an integral part of the United Kingdom.
If there is any dramatic increase in unemployment in Northern Ireland, due to measures taken by this Government, then it could lead to a worsening of the position even as it exists today. In 1929 to 1931, everyone on this House at that time laughed at Hitler, but as soon as unemployment figures rose in Germany, so Hitler's strength rose. We have a few miniature Hitlers today. Northern Ireland is indeed worthy of special consideration in economic matters in whichever way the Government propose to act. If there is to be any substantial rise in unemployment, it will certainly fall on that section of the community least able to defend itself.
There are many subjects I should be prepared to discuss, but I do not want to go outside the rules of order, and I hope that I have been able to illustrate that in Northern Ireland there is an unnatural political situation. The concern which I voice on behalf of my constituents, and my hon. Friends on this side of the House, is such that I believe that whatever discussions take place between the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should be made public. The minority in Northern Ireland looks outside the boundaries of the Stormont Parliament. That minority looks to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom with hope and calls to him for assistance in its plight. It is a plight which those people have had to withstand for many years.
I realise that questions on the electoral law of Northern Ireland cannot be dealt with by the Minister this morning, but I ask her in all sincerity to take cognisance of the remarks which have been made, and I also ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you can in any way help us to rid ourselves of the conventions which exist in this House and which prevent me from discussing the welfare of my constituents. I find it rather frustrating when I look to this House

for justice for my constituents—because I know that any plea that I make in the Stormont will certainly fall on deaf ears.
I am pledged to support the Labour Administration in this country, and I close with the remarks I made during the course of my maiden speech; if I support Socialism in England, Scotland and Wales I am entitled to ask my Socialist friends to support me in my fight for social justice and democracy in Northern Ireland.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I will not detain the House for very long. It is a frustrating thing to me that whenever we seek to raise questions concerning Northern Ireland there is always an atmosphere of humour, as though we are discussing something very funny. This is one of the greatest weapons deployed to destroy any argument, apart from the barmy convention that we have, which allows me to discuss Timbuctoo, Rhodesia, Peru or the Argentine but forbids me to discuss matters which are of vital interest to my constituents.

Mr. Hamling: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is even more barmy that an Irish Member can discuss the grievances of constituents in West Woolwich but cannot discuss the grievances of his own constituency of Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)?

Mr. McGuire: I said at the beginning of my speech that humour was always introduced into such debates as this. To seek to debate these matters here is about as useful an exercise as washing one's feet with one's socks on; no good comes out of it?

Mr. Hamling: Rheumatism?

Mr. McGuire: When we discuss the Irish question as it appertains to the six counties of Ulster—because they have not got all nine counties; they have got only six out of the nine—the weapon of humorous ridicule is used. It is regarded as very funny—very Irish. I do not know when the last anti-Unionist Member for Belfast, West was heard here. I think it was a long time ago.

Mr. McNamara: He was in gaol.

Mr. McGuire: He did as much good there as he would have been able to do here. I am sure that Members who


represent the other 11 seats in Northern Ireland would not mind having detailed discussions about the problems of the people of Northern Ireland, because they are very fond of saying that nothing is wrong with the situation there. They fight like the devil to prevent us finding out. With their co-operation, we could discuss intimate details of aid and Northern Ireland's Government, and why it is called Britain's political slum.
These conventions should not be established for ever. When the convention began in 1922, there was doubt about whether we could debate the Stormont. When the then Speaker was asked whether questions unrelated to defence or foreign affairs in Northern Ireland could be discussed, he said that he would have to have notice of the question. I do not blame him for using that convention.
So far as I can tell, it has never been ruled upon, but that first convention has always been fastened on by previous Speakers, who we know are non-political but who used to be Tories. This has been used as a weapon to prevent us——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to make remarks which in any way reflect on my predecessors in the Chair.

Mr. McGuire: I withdraw that remark. Despite this convention, responsible people in Northern Ireland, such as Captain O'Neill, have said that discrimination is practised and that certain things are wrong, that they should not be expected to wave a magic wand, but that the matter should be left to them. But we have left it to them—not to Captain O'Neill: I recognise his statesmanship and courage in meeting Mr. Sean Lemass on 14th January, 1965, and on 9th February in Dublin.
These meetings seem trivial, and we would be appalled that it should be thought that meetings between two Ministers of different Governments are evidence of courage. But this is a courageous act by Captain O'Neill. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland thinks things are wrong, yet we are prevented by the conventions of the House from discussing the matter. The Lord Chancellor last week gave hope to all

hon. Members on this side when he said that, although we should not throw overboard every precedent, nor should we seek refuge in and be bound by all these decisions. It was case law: what one judge decided was the law, unless he was over-ruled by a higher court.
As a 32-county Irishman, I want the prosperity of the people of Northern Ireland and the whole of Ireland, and I want them to live in the kind of atmosphere which is natural here. I want to see this brought about, and it will come about all the more quickly if this Parliament exercises its authority. Very wisely, when it gave Northern Ireland certain functions and powers, it said, "We will keep the over-riding authority to ourselves under Section 75." That can mean only keeping the power to intervene when we believe that to be in the best interests of Northern Ireland and of this country. In quiet conversation, some hon. Members opposite recognise even better than we do what the situation is. Hon Members opposite have said, "Let us tackle it in our way". But that way has not been successful, and progress has been hindered because they have sheltered behind the fact that the full spotlight of Parliamentary debate cannot be directed at Northern Ireland. We may debate the loss of civil liberties in any country in the world except Northern Ireland. The atmosphere there would be 100 per cent. better if we could. I fervently hope that shortly we shall have in Northern Ireland the atmosphere for which I ask. I ask the 11 Unionist Members to tell the truth to the people back home—the truth that this Parliament will not stand for this for ever and a day.

5.42 a.m.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) in the point which he has been developing about the powers of this Parliament to discuss, matters relating to Northern Ireland. When I became a Member of the House a few months ago I was unaware of this long history of precedent and of the numerous arguments which had taken place about the rights of this Parliament in this respect. I became aware of the problem when, in reply to a series of Questions on 26th May, 1966, Mr. Speaker referred hon. Members who were seeking to discuss


matters relating to Northern Ireland to Erskine May, page 354. Mr. Speaker pointed out that all he was concerned with was what was in order at Question Time. He said that the hon. Member would find that the matter was dealt with in Erskine May, page 354. The reference in Erskine May relates to the inadmissa-bility of Questions and there are a number of references given to Rulings by Mr. Speaker in times past, one of which dates from 7th March, 1922.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not appropriate in this debate to go into Rulings which have been given by Mr. Speaker or any of his predecessors at Question Time.

Mr. Brooks: The point which I was trying to make was whether Rulings which have been given at Question Time necessarily apply to those other parts of our Parliamentary procedure which do not involve Questions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Equally we are not involved this morning in questions of Parliamentary procedure. All that we are concerned about is matters of administration, whether affecting Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom, within the competence of Her Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Freeson: On a point of order. Is not the point whether Rulings on Questions affect this debate? I should have thought that on that groundwork my hon. Friend would have proceeded to develop various points under the subject of the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understood it, the hon. Member was making a speech and not raising a point of order. When a number of points of order were raised earlier I indicated, I hoped clearly, my own interpretation of the rules of order by which I am bound. Rules of order may be changed. But where they are established by custom or otherwise accepted, I am bound to preserve them. If the hon. Member wants to argue that these conventions should be changed, then some other occasion must be found for arguing that. It is not appropriate tonight, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, when we are concerned with matters of administration, to argue that our Parliamentary conventions should be changed.

Mr. Brooks: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my difficulty is that I am not clear about the basis on which the convention, to which reference is often made, rests. In the same exchange on 26th May, the Prime Minister, referring to certain conventions, said:
There is the convention which all Governments in this House have fully honoured about not dealing with matters which are within the responsibility of the Stormont Parliament".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 722–3.]
I take it, therefore, that this is a matter of time honoured procedure and one which is not necessarily based on any statutory or mandatory obligation. As I understand it, Section 75 of the 1920 Act, to which reference has been made, simply states:
Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland"—
and it goes on:
… or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished …
In an earlier Ruling tonight you drew a distinction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, between the authority of this Parliament and the authority of this Government. In the course of later remarks I tried to seek clarification as to how the supreme authority of this Parliament, to which reference is made in the 1920 Act, could be exercised when there is no means available to hon. Members to put questions to the Ministers in Stormont. I suggest, with respect, that this is a constitutional matter which requires clarification and reappraisal. It is obvious that the Irish question is still with us. It is obvious that this matter, which tormented the people of Ireland for many decades during the 19th century, is still, at least in parts of Ireland, particularly parts of Northern Ireland, with us.
I should have thought that it was a most serious matter, bearing in mind the considerable threat to law and order which now exists in Northern Ireland, if it is not possible, because of the sovereignty of this Parliament, for hon. Members to discuss grave developments which have been taking place in Northern Ireland in recent weeks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will explain the matter again to the hon. Member. It is perfectly competent for


this Parliament to intervene, in any legislative sense, in Northern Ireland. The competence of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament has been preserved by Section 75, which would, therefore, for example, enable this legislature to revoke or amend that Act; but that would involve legislation. It is not permissible, in debating the Consolidated Fund Bill, to introduce matters which involve legislation. We are concerned tonight only with matters of administration for which Her Majesty's Ministers in this House are responsible. That is the difficulty I am in. I do not want the hon. Member to think that any Ruling I have given tonight or any of the Rulings I have quoted from my predecessors in any way preclude the rights of this House as a legislature to intervene, if desired, in the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Freeson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you advise us wherein lies the definition, or the source of the definition, which states that the supreme authority is to be defined as being an administrative authority solely?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that if the hon. Member will look at the text of Section 75 he will find that it is quite clear that what is reserved is the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament—that is quite clear—and legislation can be introduced, and often is introduced, affecting Northern Ireland. There is no doubt about that. But in this debate we are discussing matters of administration, and only matters of administration, for which Her Majesty's Ministers at Westminster are responsible.

Mr. Freeson: I am afraid, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is not very clear to me. Where is it defined that the sovereignty of this Parliament shall be solely a legislative sovereignty?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is really inherent in the proposition. The sovereignty is expressed in legislative terms. Parliament exercises sovereignty over any part of the United Kingdom by legislation, but it has delegated administrative responsibility in certain matters to the Government of Northern Ireland. It is the Ministers in Northern Ireland who are alone responsible for these matters of administration which this Par-

liament has devolved on them. If hon. Members want to seek an opportunity of suggesting that the Government of Ireland Act should be amended, they should seek appropriate opportunities for doing so, but it cannot be raised here.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank you for your patience and for the courteous way in which you have answered these points of order. Nevertheless, I draw your attention to the wording of the Section about which we have heard so much. It states:
… the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things …
If it means that the authority is undiminished over all matters, does not that mean that there is a general residue of authority even in administrative matters?
Might I draw attention to the fact that one of the debates tonight is to be on Rhodesia. Under the Act of 1923, a Constitution was granted to that country making it almost independent, while still retaining a generous measure of residue of authority in the ultimate event vested in the British Crown. Even though there are administrative matters which, following the illegal declaration of independence on 11th November of last year, are now vested in the Governor, I take it that it would still be competent for us to discuss the subject; and that if that debate is reached you will not rule that such matters are outside the rules of order in such a debate. Rhodesia is 6,000 miles away; Northern Ireland is less than 60 miles from the mainland. Is it not proper to consider that there is a residue of administrative authority in that connection as well?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that I shall not be called upon to give any Rulings with regard to what is admissible when we come to deal with Rhodesia. At the present rate of progress, if we spend much more time on Northern Ireland I doubt whether we will get to Rhodesia, but with regard to the hon. Member's other question I must adhere to the Ruling I have given: that there are matters within the exclusive administrative competence of the Government of Northern Ireland, and those are not debatable in this House.

Mr. Brooks: Do I take it, therefore, that notwithstanding whatever administrative incompetence might, perhaps, be discerned in the affairs of Northern Ireland, it would still not be proper for hon. Members in any way to discuss the matter, even bearing in mind that the administrative machinery is in large measure operated by means of moneys coming from the national Exchequer?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not said that. All my Rulings have been directed to consideration of what is "administration" in this debate on this stage of this Bill.

Mr. Brooks: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to add my support to the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) about the courteous way in which you have dealt with these very protracted points on procedure and order. All hon. Members will appreciate the difficulty under which we labour in the background of the discussion.

5.55 a.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I came to listen to the debate tonight under the impression that we might have a useful discussion on economic affairs in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGuire: We are not allowed to.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Indeed we are. I was encouraged by what I read in a Northern Ireland newspaper on 31st July in which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is quoted indirectly as say that fear of unemployment
will be the main plank of his platform tonight, fear that it might increase as a result of the squeeze.
If he had put forward that fear at some length tonight he would have had my warm support. He went on to say, according to the article:
I have been deliberately quiet during the last few weeks like other hon. Members for Northern Ireland, in case anything I might have said would be used by irresponsibles to add fuel to the discontent.
I wish the hon. Member had remembered that, because the dry tinder is still there in some quarters of Northern Ireland. That is why I am grateful that, with certain exceptions, on the whole very little of an inflammable nature has been said tonight.

Mr. McGuire: May I point out that there is something different when we have these debates. Why will the kind of unemployment envisaged be so delicate in Northern Ireland? Why will it be so inflammatory? Will the hon. Member explain that?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I was not suggesting that unemployment as such would be inflammatory in any way, but that certain things have been said and far more could be said and I am grateful that those things have not been said, which would be far more inflammatory. I feared that the hon. Member was going to repeat what he said before.
The hon. Member had some other interesting things to say. I am sure that he was correctly reported. If not, I will give way to him. He said he would catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Tuesday, and of course he did not, and again on 8th August for his speech tonight. The newspaper story goes on to say:
It is always very difficult to get into an economic debate at Westminster. How is it that Fitt feels assured of catching the eye of the Speaker? Recently at the request of the Government Whip he didn't move his 20 amendments to the Finance Bill. … It seems interesting that any hon. Member should feel so certain he is to be called not only on one but on two occasions".

Mr. Hamling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have ruled that we can discuss in this debate only matters for which Her Hajesty's Government are responsible. I submit that Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that is a perfectly valid point of order.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I entirely welcome your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker and the assertion made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). I do not know whether the hon. Member for Belfast, West feels the same.

Mr. Fitt: This particular Press report was written by a political journalist. I at no time told him that I would be called by Mr. Speaker. That is his own construction which was put on the words. Would not the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) agree that the whole basis of that article was subsequently used by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland


in discussions with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have absolutely no idea. As far as I know, these discussions were private and will remain private. But I have heard the hon. Member talking about the construction put on his words on other occasions, and I have heard the expression that a nod is as good as a wink on many occasions. [An HON. MEMBER: What does that mean?] It means exactly what I meant it to mean and the hon. Gentleman is quite intelligent enough to work it out for himself.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West, spoke of his experience—or lack of experience—on the Consolidated Fund Bill and rather suggested that my hon. Friends and I would not have been here if he had not been present. He was, of course, quite wrong. We have been here on a number of occasions discussing the affairs of "Sea Eagle" and other subjects, and many times I have given the unemployment figures for Northern Ireland.
I hope that the hon. Member will contain himself and will have a look at HANSARD. We must remember he is on the payroll of two British Parliaments and he had better have a look at HANSARD in both. He also suggested that my hon. Friends—and I think he was being frivolous—were following him about. But we do not waste our time. We shadow more substantial things.
I thought that the hon. Member took a rather narrow view of his constituency duties. He referred to the fact that he represented 26,000 people, but of course in fact he represents 67,000 people. The 26,000 represent the number who, perhaps misguidedly, voted for him.

Mr. Freeson: On a point of order. When is the speaker from the Opposition Front Bench going to reach the Consolidated Fund Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was hoping that he would shortly do so.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I did not think that anything I said was out of order.
If I may once again simply refer to the remarks of the hon. Member, who was not called to order, when he referred to my hon. Friend's attack on

the Prime Minister of this country and his speaking of the Prime Minister's mismanagement of the economy. My hon. Friend was perfectly entitled to draw that conclusion. But, of course, the hon. Member for Belfast, West had presumably forgotten that he himself, when he thought he was beyond the ears of this Parliament and this country, made a stinging attack on the leader of the Labour Party during the seamen's strike.

Mr. Hamling: What has the seamen's strike got to do with the subject of this debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I must allow the hon. Member to make his speech in his own way. I have already allowed a fair amount of latitude, but time is getting on and I hope that the hon. Member will bear in mind the Rulings I have given on what is in order in this debate.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: We then come to the hon. Member's comments on the unemployment figures. He says that he cannot discuss the unemployment difficulties which are not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, but however that may be, he could well have discussed certain aspects of them. We have had from Short Brothers and Harland a circular from the shop stewards—I think it is to the Member of Parliament concerned:
You will no doubt be aware that 4,000 workers in the above firm are due to become redundant between now and 1967.
Frankly we are very worried about this, and we have taken a great deal of action about it from this side of the House as the right hon. Lady will know. So I resent very much the remarks the hon. Member made about the attitude of my hon. Friends and myself about unemployment. He could also have spoken of the Joint Anti-Submarine School at Londonderry which is very much the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. He could have made a plea for its retention and made a plea to stop the proposed move to Devonport over the next few years. Incidentally, the hon. Member should be ashamed of himself for some of the things he said, because in this case, which happens to be in my constituency, I have fought extremely hard, as have my hon. Friends, to retain this organisation there


because, among other things, it employs a very large number of people, most of them middle aged, who will never be able to find work elsewhere, who have never known any work other than the Royal Navy and who do not belong to my party and who do not vote for me at elections, as is very well known. Apart from that, the base has an immense spending power for the area as a whole. It was a fight in which, if I may say so, Opposition Members at Stormont, except for certain members of the main party opposite, have played no part. And that is a shame on behalf of those people who are working there——

Mr. Lubbock: Surely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it cannot be in order for the hon. Member to criticise Members of Stormont in this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) is not in order in criticising the actions of Members of Stormont in this House.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: That is very difficult, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you will be the first to appreciate, as we have one sitting here. Is he to escape free? He is sitting here and drawing salaries from two Parliamentary payrolls.
This is my opportunity to say, and in a sense, therefore, I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the matter, that it is high time that the Government looked again at the question of moving the Joint Anti-Submarine Training School. At the beginning of the year a joint service committee was set up by the Government to inquire into the feasibility, practicability and timing of this move to Devonport. I know, and it is well known that that joint service committee recommended not only that the move should not be made, but that the base at Londonderry should be extended.
That, is why I ask the Government to think again about this. Why have they turned down the report of that committee? If it is to be turned down, why has not the report been published so that the taxpayers and those who care about defence and economy in Northern Ireland can see the reasons for themselves? I am sure that they will be joined by the hon. Member for Belfast, West in pressing for this to come about.
When I asked a Question about this last week and about whether the committee had existed and had reported as I had indicated, the response that I got was unsatisfactory. When I asked whether it had existed, the Minister of Defence actually shook his head. I give notice to the Government in the friendliest possible way that I have evidence from other members of the Government to the effect that the committee did exist and so reported. I hope, therefore, that there will be no further attempt to deny the existence of that committee.
The hon. Member might have referred indirectly to the question of the shirt trade in particular and textiles in general, for which the Board of Trade has considerable responsibility. I have taken many deputations from the Northern Ireland Federation of Shirt Makers to the Board of Trade. They led the way in proposing exactly what the Government have done for the shirt trade of this country. If the hon. Member doubts what I am saying, he had better look up the tributes which they were overkind in paying to me on that subject.
Furthermore, the hon. Member might have made inquiries about what is happening concerning the air link which I and various of my colleagues have been trying to encourage for the Londonderry area since 1958 and which, in recent months, has looked like coming to fruition. These are some of the matters—and only some of them—which the hon. Member might have raised tonight.
As you have indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, time is getting on, and I do not want to keep out certain hon. Members from Wales who will have interesting contributions to make, with possibly less difficulty that hon. Members opposite have found. I shall, therefore, be as brief as I can. Without wishing to be polemical, I must say, however, that I have seldom listened to an attempt to make a speech which combined so much irresponsibility with so much factual inexactitude as the hon. Member for Belfast, West made tonight. I question whether it was wise at this moment, when there is a certain amount of dry tinder about in Northern Ireland, to initiate a debate on this particular question—I say this to other hon. Members opposite in all sincerity—especially


as we are awaiting an answer to a Question tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I shall not give way. Mr. Deputy Speaker wishes to move on. It is possible in debates of this kind to say things which, I am sure, would not be said other than with sincerity, though perhaps mistakenly, but which at the present time could stir up undesirable elements, could be inflammatory and, at worst, could lead to violence.
In the past few months, a number of people have made great efforts. Tributes have been paid to Captain O'Neill and others who are trying all they can to move forward to a happier feeling in the whole community. Their efforts have been attended by some success, and I pray that they will have continued success. Let us do all we can from here to help, perhaps if only by restraint in this House, for what we must not encourage, and this is desperately serious, is the kind of attitude that "Nobody cares about us, we have no friends in the party opposite and everybody is against us".
That is unhealthy in itself and inimical to the interests which hon. Members on both sides of the House have in mind for the advancement of the community. I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, West will receive no more attention than is customary. He is well known in Northern Ireland for what he says. I hope that he will be recognised again tonight for the political lightweight that he is.

6.12 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): This has been an interesting debate, though I feel myself in some difficulty in answering it because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker have from time to time ruled that many of the points raised were out of order and, at various points when my hon. Friends were speaking, other hon. Members have risen to claim that other points were out of order. It will be difficult for me to answer the debate and myself keep within order.
There has been a good deal of hilarity at times, as sometimes happens in debates on Northern Ireland, but I regard the subject of Northern Ireland as very

serious and one which the House should treat—and I am sure does treat—very seriously.
I shall probably be stepping where angels fear to tread, but I shall try as far as I can to state the constitutional background and the responsibilities of the Government here for Northern Ireland. The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, set up the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and gave that Parliament power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Northern Ireland, subject to a list of exceptions.
There are about 20 of those exceptions, which include such matters as the conduct of international relations, the Armed Services, coinage, the postal services and so on. These exceptions over which the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom retain control are commonly called "reserved services", and all the other functions of government which are in the hands of the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland are called "transferred services". Housing, the siting of industry, electoral boundaries, and electoral qualifications insofar as electors to the Northern Ireland Parliament are concerned, are transferred.
The validity of an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament may be decided in the Northern Ireland courts from which appeal lies to the House of Lords. It is also possible for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to obtain from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council a determination as to whether an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament is beyond that Parliament's powers. Elsewhere in the Act it is provided that the Governor of Northern Ireland must be free from religious discrimination in his exercise of the prerogative and executive powers which are delegated to him. In so far as allegations of discrimination relate to actions by the Northern Ireland Government themselves, they may be tested in the courts as conflicting with this provision. As regards allegations of discrimination by local authorities in the exercise of their executive powers, it would be for the courts to determine whether they were competent to hear them.
I come now to the controversial Section 75 of the Act, to which there has been a good deal of reference in the debate.

Mr. Freeson: Before leaving the question of discrimination, are we to take it from that summary description of the position that the Home Secretary in this House is not required to accept any responsibility if there are complaints of discrimination by either local or central government in Northern Ireland?

Miss Bacon: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to continue with this part of my speech because my references to Section 75 will, I hope, clear up some of the misconceptions.
The first point to note is that Section 75 preserves the supreme authority of Parliament but not the Government of the United Kingdom over all persons, matters and things in Northern Ireland. I stress that the word used is "Parliament", not "Government". This means that in no event can there be any question of the United Kingdom Government interfering in transferred matters without legislation passed by virtue of that Section. It would need legislation by this Parliament. It is perfectly possible for the United Kingdom Parliament to change the situation by passing legislation.

Mr. Freeson: I am not a constitutional expert, but, since in our constitutional practice there is no division between Government and Parliament but the Government is made up of Parliament, wherein does this definition arise?

Miss Bacon: It arises in that it is only Parliament which can pass an Act of Parliament. The Government themselves acting as a Government or Cabinet could not pass legislation. It is only this House and the other place which could pass legislation to alter the situation.

Mr. Freeson: It is not a question of legislation. It is the question which I raised on points of order earlier. Wherein is it defined that that authority—that is the word used—is a matter of legislation? As I understand it, authority is not defined solely as legislative authority. Where is it laid down that it arises in that way under the Government of Ireland Act?

Miss Bacon: We have authority as regards certain subjects but not those which have been reserved for the Northern Ireland Government unless this Parliament passes an Act on those transferred matters. If my hon. Friend will

consider this, he will see that an Act of Parliament is needed to change the situation. To put it as simply as I can—it is not an easy subject to put simply—the Government have powers in those matters which are reserved to us. We have not powers in those matters which have been transferred to the Northern Ireland Government. But it is perfectly competent for this Parliament to take such action as it thinks fit, through legislation to change that position.

Mr. Fitt: Mr. Fitt indicated assent.

Miss Bacon: I hope I have stated it plainly. I am encouraged because I see even the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) nodding his head.

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but this is a very important point to us all. Would it be impossible for the United Kingdom Government to appoint a Royal Commission to examine the way in which the present Government of Ireland Act is working?

Miss Bacon: That is a question which a number of my hon. Friends have put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I will come to it in a moment. It might have been possible, but it was decided that it was not the right way to tackle the problem. It is perfectly possible for the United Kingdom to change this situation, but we should have to think a long time before attacking the problem in that way.
I should like to remind the House that there has never been an occasion in which legislation on transferred matters has been applied to Northern Ireland against the wishes of the Northern Ireland Government. Section 75 of the 1920 Act provides authority for it to be done. It could be done by this Parliament according to Section 75, but it would do great harm to relations between the two Governments.
The purpose of Section 75 was to preserve the power of the United Kingdom Parliament to terminate or change the Constitution of Northern Ireland, and it could do that. Successive Governments have taken the view, however, that so long as Northern Ireland retains its present Constitution, it would be wrong for the United Kingdom Government and Parliament to interfere in matters for


which responsibility has been delegated to the Northern Ireland Government and Parliament.
What I have been saying does not mean that the United Kingdom Government is unconcerned about what goes on in Northern Ireland. We are greatly concerned, and we are aware of the disquiet being expressed about the situation there. There are those who urge intervention by Parliament in the exercise of its powers under Section 75, or for the Government to set up an inquiry into the working of the Government of Ireland Act. I can only say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in answer to Questions on 28th May that does not favour that kind of action. He has said that he prefers the method of informal talks with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Captain O'Neill, and, as the House knows, the first of those contacts took place at a working lunch last Friday at which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was also present.
I am not in a position to tell the House now what was said at those talks, although I understand that those who took part considered that they had had a profitable discussion and that the talks would continue in a few months' time. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to answer Questions about these talks later today, and I think that we must await the answers to be given to those Questions by my right hon. Friend.
I want to turn for a moment to the points which have been raised about the economic situation in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members have referred to the economic situation there and speculated on the possible effects of any increase in unemployment over the next few months as a result of the Government's actions. There has been speculation both outside and inside the House that, as a result of the Government's new Measures, there will be an increase in unemployment, and it has also been suggested that, if that were to happen, it could lead to serious social and political disturbances.
That can only be speculation, and I do not think that it is possible at this stage for anyone to give a detailed assessment of the new restrictions as they will affect Northern Ireland or any other area of the United Kingdom. All that I can say is that it is the Government's inten-

tion to continue to treat Northern Ireland for this purpose no less favourably than a development area in Great Britain and to shield it as far as possible from the full effects of the measures now in force. I cannot say more than this but I am sure my colleagues in the economic Departments will take note of what has been said in this debate.

Mr. McGuire: I am interested to hear from my right hon. Friend that Northern Ireland is to be treated no less favourably than the development areas, but part of the argument deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was that there had been deliberate economic deprivation and starvation of certain counties. Will the Government see that this is put right?

Miss Bacon: I am talking about the effects or possible effects of the Government's economic measures announced over last two or three weeks. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is to answer a Question from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) on Thursday about the effect of the Government's new policies on the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland. I am only too well aware that the unemployment figures for Northern Ireland are consistently higher than those for the rest of the United Kingdom.
The unemployment figure in the middle of last month was nearly 28,000, representing 5·9 per cent. of the insured population, but I have been pleased to see that, in recent years, there has been some improvement. Indeed, during the first nine months of 1965, unemployment was lower than for the corresponding period in any of the 10 years previous. Even so, the average was too high at 6·4 per cent.
I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West said about unemployment being in areas in Northern Ireland. I visited one of those areas when I was in Northern Ireland a few weeks ago. I went to Newry, which is almost on the border between Northern Ireland and Eire and an area which he quoted as having over 14 per cent. unemployment, which is very great for a small town of that size.
I visited the meat processing factory recently built and opened by a Danish firm which is employing a number of people and was interested to see that it is


probably the most up to date in Europe. I was glad to see that something at least was going into Newry to help ease the unemployment situation there.
The critical position of Short Brothers and Harland, the aircraft firm, and of Harland and Wolff, the shipbuilders, have been mentioned. I understand the concern, for both have been mainstays of the Northern Ireland economy in the past. The future of both is dependent to some extent on action by the Government here.
First, I shall deal with Short Bros. and Harland. Early in 1965 the Government decided to make drastic reductions in the military aircraft programme. From the start, we recognised that this decision was of particular importance for Shorts, both because the Government are the majority shareholders and because of the already serious unemployment situation in Northern Ireland.
Accordingly, it was decided to carry out a comprehensive review of the company's potential and of the best use which could be made of its labour force and other assets. Consultants were appointed and they submitted their report in December. Among other things, they recommended that Shorts' production should be diversified, through joint ventures with existing companies, into other activities, particularly mechanical engineering. The consultants further recommended that a negotiator should be appointed to handle the discussions with possible partners for Shorts. In March, it was announced that Sir Matthew Slattery, a former Chairman of Shorts, and Mr. Derek Palmer, one of the industrial advisers of the First Secretary of State, had been invited to carry out the diversification negotiations.
Questions on the progress of the diversification exercise are for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, but on 7th July, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Belfast, East my right hon. Friend said that the Northern Ireland Government and ourselves were working closely together on this problem.
I am very pleased to see that Rolls-Royce has decided to rent one of the Northern Ireland's Government factories, near Belfast, for the manufacture of aero-engine components. This scheme will eventually employ over 2,000 and, although it has no direct relevance to the diversification of Short Bros., some

of Shorts' workers may find employment there.
The problems of Harland and Wolff are bound up with the general question of the future of the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom as a whole. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to make a statement this week on the Government's decisions on the recommendations of the Geddes Committee on the shipbuilding industry, and I must ask the House to await that statement. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) raised the question, as he has previously done, of the Joint Antisubmarine School. As he knows, the then Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy announced on 26th October last year that the Government had decided, with regret, that this establishment must be moved from Londonderry to Plymouth. The hon. Member for Londonderry has been active in trying to get this decision changed, but he has frequently been told that the operational arguments for moving the establishment remain decisive.
Although this matter is kept under review, no Government establishments have yet been identified as being suitable for transfer to Londonderry to replace the Joint Anti-submarine School.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Would the right hon. Lady inquire on what basis the Committee's recommendation was made?

Miss Bacon: The hon. Gentleman asked a Question only last week of my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence for the Royal Navy, and he was told that my hon. Friend preferred not to publish the report of the Committee. This is a matter for my hon. Friend, and the hon. Gentleman must pursue this matter with him.
Mention has been made of recent trouble in Northern Ireland. We should all be very careful in what we say in this House not to exacerbate that trouble. I made my first visit to Northern Ireland and Eire in the middle of June of last year, the week before the serious trouble occurred. It is a beautiful country which unfortunately has a history of strife, trouble and bloodshed. There is still religious strife in Northern Ireland and old controversies and battles are still being fought.
As everyone recognises, it is a country with great economic difficulties, which are being slowly overcome. Northern Ireland has a prosperous agricultural industry; it has good factories like the one I have mentioned at Newry, and there is a great need for more industry in Northern Ireland. But that country, with strife and bitterness, will not attract new industry and investment. As I said when I was in Northern Ireland, if I were an Ulsterman I should think that it was time to stop living in the past, with old hatreds and old feuds and I should look to the future of the economy, because it is there that the happiness of the country lies.

MOTORWAYS (SERVICE STATIONS)

6.35 a.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a number of questions concerning the service stations, and in particular the catering establishments within those service stations, on the motorways. These are problems which, I am very happy to say, can be stated briefly, but I also think it fair to say that they are problems of concern to a great many people which raise important issues of principle. I am also aware that the Parliamentary Secretary himself is interested in these problems, and I hope that he will take this opportunity to state the Government's intentions and proposals.
My attention was first drawn to these establishments in the usual way, namely, by having to use them as a motorist fairly regularly travelling on motorways. I was glad to see them set up and I was at first impressed as, I think, were most motorists with the planning which had gone into them, and with their scope. It seemed that every possible convenience was to be provided for motorists and that, if not every possible demand, every reasonable demand was to be met and catered for. Prices, it is true, were not low, but they were acceptable in the early stages.
However, it was not long before motorists noticed a deterioration in certain of these establishments; not in all, but in some of them. The shining new

places began to look shabby, prices began to rise, service which had been good began to deteriorate, and things got worse in a general way. Up to a point, one could understand this deterioration. Nothing remains new for very long, and these establishments had, of necessity, been placed in areas where it was not easy to recruit staff. In some instances, proprietors would have a considerable expense in conveying staff over long distances, and they all had clearly to compete with another difficulty, namely, the great variation in levels of demand.
Peak demand is very heavy indeed, whereas in off-peak periods—such as the time of day at which I am raising this subject this morning—one naturally finds very little demand. Yet the proprietors have to maintain a service round the clock, and so one understood that, for that reason if for none other, a certain deterioration was inevitable. But I think that, in certain of the establishments, it went rather further than the inevitable. My own observations were soon noted by others, and early in my Parliamentary career I received letters about the sort of service which other motorists had found. This was highlighted by a number of letters which appeared in the Manchester Evening News. There was a banner headline on one occasion, "Must We Suffer This Café Service?" and this had a snowballing effect. I received even more letters. Some went into detail, but all commented on the same general point, namely, that the standards on the whole had declined.
Many of the correspondents pointed out that certain of these establishments maintained a high standard at times, while the service and standards generally declined at other times, and there was also a uniformity of opinion about rising prices in those commodities in which there is a big turnover, such as cups of tea, and things of that kind.
Following that I tabled a Parliamentary Question on 11th May, seeking to discover what machinery existed within the Ministry of Transport for exercising some form of supervision over the services provided in these establishments. I am still seeking that information, but, following that Question, the matter was taken up further in the Press. The Daily Mail, in particular, gave some prominence to the question, as a result of


which I had further letters. Some were worrying in their implications. One was from a person who was responsible for conducting foreign businessmen round the country and was therefore part of our export business. In the course of his letter referring to his experiences in conducting these businessmen round and having to entertain them on the motorways, he said,
I felt ashamed in front of foreign visitors
and so on, at the standards they found, and particularly at the comparisons they made with places in other countries.
As a result of these letters I carried out an investigation myself. In a very short time I visited every motorway restaurant in this country. Hon. Members are often called upon to perform unusual tasks on behalf of the electorate, but the task of travelling 200 miles on motorways and eating sausage rolls and drinking cups of tea every 20 miles is not the pleasantest of them. I made a note of the various prices charged. In some places I found a high standard of service, but in others I did not. I do not apportion blame individually, because in part the differences may have been due to variations in the ease with which staff could be recruited and also to differences in the time of day, which have an effect on the kind of service that can be provided.
But I took a note of the variations in the prices charged for different articles. Some of these prices were quite high. In one self-service establishment tea cost 9d. in a plastic cup. In some places hygiene was not what one would expect. There were variations in the way in which food was kept. Sometimes dishes containing cooked food were left exposed for long periods, until required. There were great differences in the time one had to wait to be served. But it is not my intention to employ this occasion in haggling over individual prices or specific complaints; I am concerned about the implications of my findings and the general principles involved.
When the Ministry awards a concession to a firm and allows it to open and maintain one of these establishments, it is virtually awarding a monopoly, because the next establishment is about 20 miles away. If a motorist urgently requires refreshment, or has other urgent and

more physiological needs, it is no good telling him that he has a choice of establishments when the next one is 20 miles away. When the Ministry awards a monopoly concession in which the normal processes of competition are clearly not operating it has a duty to see that the consumer interest is properly protected.
I think we might all agree on what these establishments are for. They are, first, to provide a service for the comfort and convenience of motorists, but second, and more important, they prevent motorists from leaving and rejoining motorways and from stopping on the motorways. They have a social function—that of maintaining the policy of motorways by keeping traffic moving and not leaving the motorways to visit other catering establishments. It is, therefore, important that their standards should be maintained at the necessary level. It would be disastrous if motorists left the motorways, perhaps to visit licensed establishments for their refreshment. But are we agreed on how the places should be run?
The argument constantly put to me by proprietors when it was known that I was inspecting these places was that it was the financial arrangement negotiated with the Ministry which compelled them to charge high prices and sometimes to-reduce their services. I cannot know the details, but the Press were told when they asked the Ministry that they had negotiated the best deal on behalf of the taxpayers. This is proper, but, in doing so, the Ministry is also running the risk that the firm concerned will then pass on the effects of that deal to other taxpayers—the motorists. The more the Ministry acquires from these firms, the more the firms will have to collect in prices or save by reducing services.
The proprietors of a small place of this kind tell me that they pay a rent of £75,000 and a percentage of the "take". The nature of these financial arrangements must inevitably have a bearing on the prices charged and the services provided. A letter I have from one of these firms reads:
Unfortunately, the alleged monopoly we have is not a very enjoyable or profitable one.… The developers concerned will from now on be very reluctant to participate in any future developments of this kind unless the Government and the Ministry are prepared to make considerable concessions.


Another catering firm which has been considering entering this field writes:
Owing to the Government's present policy of requiring tenants to build their own facilities, there is a minimum capital involvement of £300,000 for each service area.
It says that this restricts these services to very big monopolies, and questions whether this is wise.
I mention these things to show that the Ministry's financial arrangements with these firms in awarding concessions have an important bearing on what happens later in these establishments. The question of monopolies is important politically. The award of a concession of this kind, which is a monopoly, carries with it a duty to protect the consumer. There is no competition. The next one is 20 miles away. The Minister is the only person who can protect the cosumer interest. I should like to know from the hon. Member how the Ministry are doing this.
In conclusion, I will put to him three questions. First, what routine arrangements exist for the inspection and supervision of these establishments so that the Ministry may be aware of whether a reasonable standard of service is being provided and whether the sort of service originally contemplated is being maintained. Secondly, what machinery exists for improving the standards or adjusting the prices where the earlier investigations have shown this to be necessary? Thirdly, what routine observation of prices and profits are conducted by the Ministry and what steps are taken to correlate these with the financial arrangements which have been made with the Ministry and with the firms providing these services? This is important. Literally millions of our citizens are using these places. It is important that their interests are protected.
It is also important that where a public service is provided—and in effect this is a public service—the interests of those providing them ought to be properly protected. We can know this only if the full facts are known and placed before us. Hitherto they have not been. The Minister is being given an opportunity which I hope he will seize upon.

6.52 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): The debate on the Consoli-

dated Fund Bill has traditionally attracted many complaints about transport—naturally, because transport policy covers a wide field and normally there are widespread complaints. Especially because we have recently published what some people have told me is a highly controversial White Paper on Transport Policy, I naturally looked eagerly down the list of hon. Members from the official Opposition who were falling over themselves to raise subjects concerning transport. It was with some astonishment, therefore, that I found that the first Member of the official Opposition, just after this White Paper, was published, is No. 31 in the list. It is the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear Admiral Morgan Giles) who, if he gets the chance, will raise the subject of the Kingsworthy bypass. It seems unlikely that he will get the chance, and he is not here. Nevertheless, that was the first subject setting the Opposition aflame on this occasion. We seem to have silenced the official Opposition by the White Paper.
Therefore, I welcome the existence in the House of the independently-minded Liberal Member for Cheadle (Dr. Win-stanley), who draws attention to the important subject of conditions in the motorway service areas. In the Ministry of Transport we recognise our dual responsibility in regard to motorway service areas. We have the duty, in the provision of these sites and the control of these licences, to see that the public are given a satisfactory service. I accept that, secondly, we have a duty to see that the community gets a fair return for the investment in service areas which provide for those companies which take the contract important commercial advantages. The hon. Member for Cheadle made certain comments on the financial arrangements, and I should like first of all to make clear what these are.
I emphasise that the rents paid for the service areas on motorways are not fixed by the Ministry of Transport. They are arranged as a result of bids made in open competition by potential developers. In making their bids, companies have the responsibility of calculating what they can afford to pay, having estimated the value of the site to them. I will not reveal any details of the arrangements which are made between the Ministry and the licensees on these occasions, but I


make it absolutely clear that these service areas are thrown open to competition and that the rents—the "rake-off", as some people call them—are paid into community funds, into the Department, as a result of the tenders submitted. Each bid for these service areas is made in two parts, one a fixed, annual rent and the other a proportion of the turnover, excluding fuel tax. Any suggestion, therefore, that those who are providing services in the service areas are somehow inhibited by exorbitant rents is misconceived, because the companies themselves propose the rents when tendering for the contracts.

Dr. Winstanley: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in making those tenders, the companies concerned are, to a large extent, dependant on estimates of future use provided by the Ministry of Transport? Is he aware, for example, that the firm to which I referred stated:
We would never have"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot make a second speech in the guise of an intervention.

Dr. Winstanley: I merely suggest that it is not solely the responsibility of the companies but that it is, certainly in part, dependent on the reliability of the estimates given by the Ministry.

Mr. Swingler: Certainly estimates are given to the companies by the Ministry. Estimates can be made by the prospective tenderers, just as they can be made by any member of the public, about the likely build-up of traffic at certain areas. These are big businessmen who are accustomed to making estimates. Sometimes they may be wrong. I emphasise that we are not laying down the standards, fixing the rents or saying what is the proportion of the takings that should be paid to community funds. This is arranged as a result of the tenders being put in by the companies on the calculations they make in competition with one another. It is up to them to make the best estimates they can.
The hon. Member for Cheadle made considerable play with the word "monopoly". All sorts of interpretations may be given to the monopolistic position in this respect. I assert that the service areas are not monopolies. They are now

being provided at intervals of 24 miles on the motorways, or a service area about every 24 minutes of travelling time. We are planning to provide them at 12-mile intervals. I suggest, therefore, that motorist are able to select which areas they will patronise, if they decide to patronise them at all, and that there is competition between these service areas up and down the M1, the M6 and other motorways.
The companies which hold the leases are responsible for the day-to-day management of the restaurants. It is clear that if they offer a standard of service which is unacceptable to motorists using the motorways, they will rapidly lose custom, since motorists are able to go to neighbouring service areas.
I should like to point out some of the peculiarities of the position of those who are operating the service areas and of the proprietors of the restaurant facilities that are provided. In all the service areas except one, catering facilities are being provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The bulk of the cleaning, etc. must therefore take place whilst those facilities are being provided to the public.
The peaks in the traffic are so large and so irregular that it is impossible to cope adequately at all times without providing unnecessary service for much of the time, and this is easily realisable, especially by those who have visited these service areas during the height of the holiday season. Consequently, and inevitably, there are times when people must wait in queues for a meal when the facilities are under extreme pressure during the holiday season.
I should like to give the House some examples. The service area at Keele, which is in my constituency, provides a typical case. On a recent occasion, 118 full coaches arrived at one side of the motorway within a period of 40 minutes, in addition to the ordinary traffic. Those coaches carried 3,600 passengers, and the full service area has a total catering capacity of 700 seats. That is typical of the kind of seasonal fluctuations that can take place. In a quiet week at the Keele service area about 40,000 people normally patronise the restaurants, but at busy times 200,000 have been known to visit the service area in a week—and that figure excludes those who use only the other facilities on the site.
It is therefore inevitable that staff costs in these service areas—offering the all-round-the-clock service from one end of the week to the other—are abnormally high. At many of the stations, the staff have to travel quite a distance from their homes, and have to be prepared to work on night shifts.
An added difficulty of these service areas is, I am sorry to say, the amount of pilfering and vandalism that has been a common feature. During the last year £2,000 worth of cutlery and crockery was stolen within the Knutsford service area. Last week, in the Keele service area, over 200 teaspoons were stolen. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman complains of comparatively high prices, and so on, I regret to say that this fact has to be taken into account. In addition the free facilities, such as parking, toilets, and so on, provided at these establishments have to be taken into account.
The hon. Gentleman asked about inspection. Inspectors of the Ministry of Transport visit the service areas on the motorways at regular intervals, and report to us on the standards being maintained. Three months ago, the hon. Gentleman asked me a Parliamentary Question about this position, and I replied to him that if we were supplied with specific details about poor service we should at all times be prepared to examine complaints. I must say, however, that in 1965 the Ministry of Transport—which receives a number of complaints about a number of things—received only 42 complaints about standards and conditions in the service areas. When one considers that one service area alone can cater for up to 200,000 people a week, this level of complaint does not suggest a grave situation at the moment. Of course, I do not say that in order to invite a great volume of complaints to us, but that has been the position for some time.
In the last resort, the public themselves have the responsibility of bringing to our notice examples of poor service, hygiene, and so on, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and, through him, those whom he represents, that any complaints of this kind will be gone into, and treated very seriously. In 1964 traffic on the Ml increased by 10 per cent., but the use of the service areas increased by 28 per

cent. This seems to show that there is something attractive and valuable about the service areas which actually increased their usage to a greater extent than that of the motorway itself.
We are not in any way complacent about the standards on the motorways or the problems which confront those who have taken licences. In the Ministry of Transport we are always prepared to assist them in any way we can but on the experience we have to date of the volume of complaints which have been made, I do not believe that there is anything unsatisfactory about the standard of service provided.

HOUSING (OLD PROPERTIES)

7.6 a.m.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: To start on the subject of housing associations in relation to twilight or blighted areas in our cities it is necessary to state a few bald facts statistically, although I do not intend to weary the House with an extensive recital of such detail.
Of the 15 million households in this country it is estimated that over 2 million are over 100 years old and about 2½ million are between 65 and 100 years old. It is to the latter figure that we have to pay attention when discussing the question of ageing areas of cities. With the first figure we are concerned chiefly with the problem of slum clearance coming upon us progressively over a period of years. With the second figure of about 2½ million dwellings built between 65 and 100 years ago, we are concerned with sub-standard property which has not, in the main, come up to modern requirements.
It is estimated, I believe, that out of the 15 million households about 3 million either share or are entirely without a w.c., nearly 2 million share or are without a kitchen sink and over 1 million share or are without a cooking stove. I could go on to recite further figures of other amenity shortages—to put it mildly—in millions of homes.
I know from my experience in local government work that a considerable amount of activity is building up in local government to deal with this problem. In the main, it is still confined to the question of redevelopment of the worst twilight areas, but increasingly there are good


examples of properties being purchased either individually or within districts for modernisation and improvement. But it remains a fact that no matter how extensive the work of local authorities is in those areas of the cities they are not able to cope with the urgency of the problem within the space of the next few years because they have not got the administrative resources and technical staff to handle the job of large-scale improvement and it is not likely that they will be able to build up their administrative organisations and recruitment of such staff within a reasonable time sufficiently to get ahead on a large scale with dealing with the problem of sub-standard properties.
That is the practical reason why I wish to raise the question of housing associations, but there is also a question of principle or basic policy involved here. I, as a good social democrat, believe that in extending the field of public ownership in a variety of directions in this country we should always be aiming, in the end, to diffuse that ownership so that it is not over-centralised where it is not necessary to centralise it, and I think that in the field of housing and community activity one can best find techniques for diffusing rather than centralising social ownership.
While it will be absolutely essential to extend considerably the ownership of rented properties by local authorities to deal with the problem of sub-standard properties, there must be scope both on practical grounds of principle and policy to extend the field of other forms of social ownership by way of various kinds of housing associations, whether charitable trusts, co-operatives or other forms of housing association which I will deal with in my remarks.
It is true to say that in this country the possibilities of housing associations in one form or another as a responsible means of social ownership has hardly been touched upon. When we look at the whole of our housing field and compare it with community activity in other countries in Europe and indeed in the United States, we see that the scope of housing associations and co-operative housing associations has been much wider and much more dramatically pursued and enlarged upon than it has been in Britain.
There is undoubtedly great scope for such associations in the twilight areas of our cities as an important supplement to local authority action. At present, there is far too little that is positive being undertaken by local authorities to sponsor housing associations generally, and sometimes there has been deliberate discouragement. I do not intend to describe the powers that lie with local authorities either to finance or to sponsor housing associations; this would be a wasteful exercise, as one can go and look at a reference book to establish what these powers are. What I am concerned about is the use of these powers imaginatively and positively, and I do not feel that this is the position at present though there are signs that more authorities have been interesting themselves recently than was the case in the past.
It remains true, however, that there is little positive action over the country as a whole, and, as I have said, some deliberate discouragement in particular instances. There have even been cases to my knowledge where offers of large convertible properties in twilight areas have been refused by the council for one reason or another, and some may be good, because of expense or managerial difficulty, and the same councils have afterwards refused to help by means of loans or grants the purchase of such properties and their conversion by housing associations through the rate cost would have been no higher than for council-built dwellings or the council purchase of such property.
In other cases councils have refused to consider buying expensive new blocks of flats on the market because the rents or rate subsidy was too high for their tenants, and have then refused also to buy on a limited subsidy basis for use by housing associations. The blocks have thus remained at luxury and speculative rents or prices on the market instead of being put to priority social need. The tendency even for those councils which are willing to provide loans to associations is to treat such negotiations almost as business matters between a mortgagor and a mortgagee.
The slowness of this procedure means that offers of properties are lost and that initial expenses of association members with limited resources are high. I have


experience of advising housing associations which have lost property after property as a result of this approach by local authorities. It also means that even when transactions are completed, there is a long period of capital repayment and other expenditure and no income while works are carried out on a further loan when dealing with older properties. This, plus the high cost of property in the large conurbations, militates strongly against the expansion of associations in just those areas and for the very people who are most in need of them.
The result of this local government failure by default is that there are many large old houses on the market which could become homes at reasonable cost rents or with small subsidies, but which, instead, continue to be rack-rented and disgracefully maintained by private landlords. In some instances, also, instead of being helped, associations have been asked to contribute considerably to the capital cost of housing schemes to help the local authorities in question and the asosciation schemes have thus collapsed.
What is necessary, particularly in the central built-up areas, the twilight areas with which we are concerned this morning, is for councils to be willing, for example, to carry the cost of land so that associations are responsible for buildings, conversion and management costs only. Reasonable rents and subsidy would thus result, certainly at no higher level than on local authority dwellings, and in most instances at a considerably lower level of cost than would be the case if the councils concerned were themselves to purchase and convert or were to demolish and build anew.
The method would be, as I have suggested, for the local authority to buy the property and negotiate a long lease on the life of the building, when improved and converted, with a registered housing society operating an approved system of management on an individual or pooled cost rent basis according to circumstances and on the advice of the local authorities concerned. Indeed, there is no reason why local authorities should not require some of their officers to be seconded especially to advise and to help in the creation and running of housing associations and—I go further—even to investigate properties considered unsuit-

able for direct housing use by the local authorities themselves. What we need is a positive policy by local authorities rather than a passive one.
Alternatively, a housing society could be provided with local authority or Government's Housing Corporation loan capital, unrelated to a specific purpose, sufficient to enable the societies concerned to act promptly when negotiating the purchase of properties and to put works in hand and cover the period when there is no rent income to match expenditure. This is of considerable importance, because one of the biggest problems facing housing associations, and a problem which has resulted in the total failure and collapse of worth-while efforts by people forming themselves into such associations, has been the long period of time when they have been seeking to buy properties, and have then had to initiate negotiations with the local authority for the necessary loans to carry through the purchase and have been involved in delay, sometimes necessary but often unnecessary, which has resulted in the properties going to another purchaser, often a rack-renting landlord interested in making the most out of the larger profits now coming to hand in the old parts of our cities.
It should be made much more widely known that the Government's Housing Corporation is empowered to lend money for the purchase and conversion of suitable old property by associations, and that it is not confined—I understand that this is the position—to making loans for the new housing schemes. It would be interesting to know whether there has yet been any example of a housing association receiving assistance from the Housing Corporation for the purchase and conversion of a large old property. I understand that so far the resources have been made available only for the building of new properties, which is not the best way to assist in meeting the greatest need in the older parts of our cities.
I state briefly, but not without thought, that there is an untapped field of sponsorship for housing associations within the trade union and Co-operative movements. The Ministry could well initiate discussions with some of the larger trade unions and the Co-operative movement with a view to encouraging such sponsorship. It is not unknown on the Continent, but as far as I know it is totally


unknown in this country, for trade unions to associate themselves with this activity in housing. It should be encouraged, so far as the various constitutions of the unions would allow them to embark on this kind of activity.
It is important that the Milner Holland Committee's recommendations for easing the tax burden on housing associations should be implemented. There have been moves in the Finance Acts since the Committee reported, and the Report was debated in the House, but further measures are needed. It is also important for the Government and local authorities to want to help, instead of being mildly interested in some instances, indifferent in others and even antagonistic in some instances to the idea of housing associations. The problems arising in old districts in our cities is so great that every social agency—Government, council and housing association—should be brought to bear on them.
I know that the Ministry has recently been in fairly close contact with the committee of the London boroughs in an attempt to encourage interest there. I have seen most of the contents of the letter sent by the Minister to the committee, and I can certainly highly commend that letter, but I am concerned about what happens when the matter goes from the committee to the London boroughs—and this is just one part of the country. I fear that it will be noted at local authority level, no doubt in a friendly spirit, but that the authorities will sit back and await applications, as they do with people who apply for mortgages to buy their own homes.
What is wanted now is a positive assertion of the need for this by the local authorities on the lines I have suggested, for the local authorities to go out of their way in their districts to seek out those who would be interested in the housing associations, to seek out the properties and to get this kind of policy embarked upon, rather than waiting for the people to come to them with possible inquiries.
I am reinforced in my view that there is a need for a greater lead from the Ministry by the Answer—the second I have had on this subject—I received from the Minister to a Question which I put to him last week, asking whether he would publish a circular. My hon. Friend replied:

Local authorities know that my right hon. Friend is anxious that they should do all they can to help and encourage housing associations, and he does not think further advice on the subject is called for at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 67.]
I have thrown out one or two suggestions as to how local authorities might give a more positive lead, and I suggest that something along those lines might be incorporated in a circular of guidance and encouragement to local authorities to take things a bit further.
I am further supported in this view by the National Federation of Housing Societies, which, in its last annual report, expressed some disappointment at the failure, by and large, of local authorities to take a positive lead, although the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as it records, has asked the Federation as well as others to assist in the encouragement of the existing associations and the promotion of new ones.
In its report the Federation itself makes a specific reference to the need for this kind of work in the twilight areas of our cities and towns. It is vital that we embark upon greater activity within these areas. The local authorities should take a much more positive and vigorous line. The Federation might be brought into discussions with the Ministry and the local authorities to get the work going. We cannot afford to allow hundreds and thousands of large properties which one cannot expect to be pulled down in the next few years under slum clearance and redevelopment schemes to continue on the market being sold and resold by speculative rack-renting landlords to be let off in multi-occupation, without proper amenities, while, at the same time, people are in need of modern or modernised homes in our big cities.
If we continue to allow this to happen, because the local authorities are unable to deal with the whole range of work, no matter how much they extend their activity, we shall by default, to put it no more strongly, deliberately encourage the creation of more and more slumdom in our cities, and that at a time when we have a big enough job on our hands to clear the already classifiable slums.
Although I have had a reply so far that a circular is not called for, implying that more positive action is not thought to be


necessary at present, I urge the Minister not just to have another look at the question, but to keep it constantly in mind so that there can be more positive efforts made to encourage the local authorities to take the lead and go out to encourage people to get associations going to take over the old properties and bring decent conditions to some of the shoddy houses which are still to be found on a large scale in the centres of our cities.

7.28 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) is one of the hon. Members who is most highly qualified to raise this subject. I know of no Member who has a greater knowledge of housing problems, particularly in London. He has had many years' experience in local government, and as a leader of a local authority, and it is right that this morning he should initiate a debate on a situation which many of us recognise could and should be improved, but which is being ignored. I am grateful to him for raising the matter.
It is a fact that renewal, whether by redevelopment or by rehabilitation and improvement, of the outworn parts of our towns and cities will undoubtedly be the big housing problem in the next 20 years, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to agree that I need no convincing about the important part which housing associations can play in this task.
Let me, first, put the problem in its context. As a Government, we saw our first task as being a rapid acceleration of the new house building programme. Only by this means can we overcome the backlog of shortages and provide for population growth. Only by this means can we get rid of the present slums that we know are so bad that there is nothing for it but to knock them down. Despite the economic difficulties which the country is now facing, we shall see an acceleration of this task. We shall do our best to ensure that those who are responsible for the removal of slums—and that can only be the public authorities—are encouraged to improve their programmes, and get rid of their slums quicker.
Having said that, let me remind my hon. Friend and the House that, early in 1965, we set in hand a whole series of studies designed to tell us more about the ways of dealing with houses that are obsolete but not slums by current standards. A sub-committee of our Central Housing Advisory Committee was given the task of reviewing the present standards of housing fitness. Its report, which has just been received, will be published in the autumn. I know that my hon. Friend will have a particular interest in it.
My Department's Urban Planning Directorate has made a detailed examination of one area of obsolescent homes in Rochdale to find out how best to decide between redevelopment and rehabilitation, and how improvement to the houses can be linked with improvements to the environment. I know that my hon. Friend will be the first to concede that that is also an important aspect of house improvement. We propose to publish that report very shortly.
My right hon. Friend is reviewing the whole of the improvement grant system to see how it can be made much more effective. To this end, we have commissioned a market research firm to make a survey. Another problem is how to ensure better and continuing maintenance of old houses. These various considerations must be brought together to mount a concerted attack on our obsolescent housing stock, and we see that as our next major task in the housing field.
However important the part which housing associations can play, they cannot be considered in isolation. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that local authorities have an enormous part to play here, and so have owner-occupiers and private landlords. Many ideas and suggestions have been put forward for stimulating activity, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I give him the assurance that this debate will be closely read not only by my right hon. Friend, but by those responsible in the Department for advising on policy. The debate will not be just a matter of going through the motions.
I am aware that in accelerating new building, with higher subsidies to local authorities and housing associations and assistance to the lower paid owner-occupiers, we may have tilted the balance in


favour of redevelopment and away from rehabilitation and improvement. That is something which we must examine. A coherent and comprehensive policy for the older houses is called for, and I give my hon. Friend an assurance that housing associations will share in the benefits of that policy and will have a continuing rôle to play. Indeed, there is a worth-while job to be done here for which determined and efficient housing associations are particularly well suited.
In the areas of acute housing pressure, local authorities often feel that their strained resources can be most usefully deployed in large-scale operations whereas the improvement and conversion of old properties means inevitably dealing with individual houses or at best with small groups of two or three at a time, and it is a fact that some local authorities, particularly in London, are too busy with their immediate task of trying to clear the slums and the rest to find time to deal with some of the older property not immediately due for redevelopment. The housing associations can take on the sort of work of dealing with one, two or three houses. We hope that local authorities will welcome the contribution that they can make in shouldering some of the burden.
This is not a new idea. Many housing associations are already doing this sort of work, with first-class results. On the other hand, it is as well to bear in mind that there are others which have very little to show for a great deal of effort. It might be thought a little invidious to mention names, but I do not think that anyone can complain if I make a reference to the very fine work which has been done, for example, by the Kensington Housing Trust, the Nottinghill Housing Trust and the Mulberry Housing Trust, with which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has been associated. There are, of course, many others. Moreover, we can expect other housing associations and trusts to be formed to do this sort of work and we welcome them.
The British Council of Churches Housing Trust is, I know, doing its best to form new housing associations centred on local churches. I understand that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever)

are taking a leading part in setting up a number of trusts in the London area which they have in mind to operate on the same lines as the Mulberry Trust.
I think that we ought not to discuss this issue without mentioning some of the snags which have been revealed by the experience of the past few years. Housing is a serious business. It demands hard work, determination, professional skill and money. Good intentions are not enough by themselves. It was put to me recently that, for a housing trust engaged in this sort of work to be effective, it needs four ingredients: first, a first-class housing manager; secondly, a competent chairman with drive; thirdly, some funds to meet overhead expenses for the initial period until rental income covers management costs, as well as some working capital; fourthly, financial support and the full co-operation of the local authorities. I entirely endorse this. A good housing manager is essential if an association is to do this work on any substantial scale and I am sure that this is one of the first requirements.
Perhaps I can say something about the question of co-operation by local authorities. My hon. Friend said, and I admit this, that some local authorities are not prepared to co-operate with housing associations. Or that, if they are, the amount of financial support they are prepared to give is not sufficient to enable schemes to be carried through to a successful conclusion. Or that there are long delays in dealing with applications which add greatly to the difficulties of the associations which, after all, are working where quick decisions are necessary.
I have no doubt that some of these criticisms are true and, to the extent that they are, I hope that local authorities will recognise the contribution that housing associations can make and will be prepared to be more forthcoming. But it is certainly not true in all cases. Some local authorities I know are only too anxious to give all the help they can to associations that come to them with sound, viable schemes, and in evidence of this I would point out that the amount of money which local authorities have advanced to housing associations has increased fourfold in the last four years.
There is another side to this question. Local authorities tell me that they have to waste a great deal of time "vetting"


schemes which have not the slightest prospect of getting off the ground, or that they are criticised because they will not make advances for schemes that simply are not viable. They say that their officers have to spend so much time giving help and advice to associations who simply do not understand what they are doing that it would be more economical if the authorities did the job themselves.
I have no doubt that there is a great deal of truth in this. Advances are made by the local authority to housing associations, using public money and the authorities have not only a right but a duty to make sure that the money is spent wisely. The local authorities must be the judges of whether a scheme is viable, and I do not intend to criticise any authority which declines to authorise money for a scheme which it does not believe will stand up to critical examination. Housing associations, if they want local authority support, have to be able to show that their proposals deserve it. They must select the right areas for their operations. It is no use selecting property which is likely to be demolished by the local authority under a clearance scheme in five or 10 years, and asking for a 25-year loan to buy it. This is common, particularly in the London area.
The property must be structurally sound and suitable for improvementt and conversion. I would have thought that it should be property which can be expected to have a useful life of at least 30 years after improvement. The price must be right, because the price governs the rents and it is no use producing good dwellings at rents that ordinary people cannot afford. Some associations complain that there is a gap between the price which they have to pay for property and the amount which the local authority will advance. But I know of one trust which tells me that it is not interested in property which it cannot acquire at the local authority's valuation. Nevertheless, it says that it has not the slightest difficulty in buying all that it can handle.
It is important that a housing association interested in this sort of work should establish a working relationship with a local authority. My view is that it is probably better for an association to confine its operations to one area, and it would be wise to accept any advice that

the local authority can give on where and how it can do the most useful work.
I hope that I have said enough to show that we as a Government are anxious that the housing association movement shall be given every encouragement to play its part in securing an improvement in the decaying areas of our big cities. I have mentioned some of the difficulties that have arisen in the past, and I hope that nothing that I have said will be taken as a discouragement of work of this nature. It is important that local authorities should give their support to it, and it is equally important that the housing associations should set about the task in a way which will justify the support which they need.
In opening his speech my hon. Friend reminded us of the vast numbers of properties which were in a decaying condition, without baths and without adequate facilities. There can be no doubt that although their contribution is small the part of the housing associations in this work is extremely important. I can give an assurance to my hon. Friend and to the House, that my Minister and my Department will do all that they possibly can to encourage local authorities to lend money to those associations which justify that aid, to encourage them to go forward and to make an improved contribution to this great problem, with which we are all concerned.

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY (TRAINING BOARD)

7.43 a.m.

Mr. Bernard Weatherill: There can be no more important subject in industry, even at this early hour of the morning, than the subject of apprentice training, unless it be the retraining of those who are to be deployed. I am sure that a measure of the effectiveness which we realise in our training programme will be the measure of our economic well-being in future years. No one disagrees about the need for training. The Industrial Training Act went through both Houses of Parliament without any opposition. It is worth saying that this may not be such a good thing as some hon. Members may think. A Bill which passes through the House without criticism loses the benefit of close


examination, and I believe that this may have been the case with the Industrial Training Act.
I want to make it clear that the criticisms which I shall make should not be taken as being other than helpful and constructive, because we all want to train our youngsters in the most effective way, and get the best value for the money we are spending. We want to see both apprentices and industry benefit. My intention at this hour of the morning is to confine my remarks to the engineering industry, but what I say could apply to other training boards. The Minister, in an earlier reply, has already stressed the future importance of training boards. I had intended to speak about retraining as well, but the subject has already been mentioned once today and I will not waste the time of the House in repetition, important though that subject undoubtedly is.
On the surface, we can be forgiven for thinking that everything in the training garden is fine and beautiful, but I am afraid that in the engineering garden we have a number of serpents. I want to draw the attention of the House to three of them. First, in an industry which employs one-sixth of the working population and which is as highly diversified as is the engineering industry, do we have adequate training facilities to deal with the problem? Secondly, how sophisticated need training be? Are courses to be tailored to suit the employer who has to pay for them, or should they fit into a much more national plan? Thirdly, is the Engineering Industry Training Board, as at present constituted, fairly representative of the whole industry? If it is not, the Minister must expect trouble.
The answer to the first question is that we certainly do not have adequate,  facilities. This fact was highlighted by an Answer to a Question of mine on 19th July, when the Minister estimated that for first-year training in the industry no specific grant would be paid for 1965–66 and that only £7½ million was expected to be paid in 1966–67, out of a total of £75 million produced by the levy. This means that the Board does not really expect more than about 15 per cent. of firms in the industry to comply with its published first-year integrated training

requirements. The Board's training council requires a first-year apprentice to follow a syllabus covering eight or nine different topics, from electrical work to metalwork.
Although the larger firms may well have facilities to handle this kind of training, the smaller firms certainly have not. For their training they must turn to the local technical colleges—and they, too, are generally unable to provide proper facilities for a 48 weeks' off-the-job training. Inevitably, this means that few small employers will be able to benefit from the grant, although because they form the majority of the industry they will be paying the major part of the levy. This is causing great resentment.
In my constituency I have a number of these small firms. They point out to me that in Section 2(1) of the Act
An industrial training board shall provide or secure the provision of such courses …
Exactly what does that mean? Does it lay on the Board the responsibility for providing courses, or does "secure provision" mean a form of gentle blackmail on employers to do the providing? Evidence from all over the country suggests that the Board has failed to provide training facilities or to persuade the local education authorities and the technical colleges to lay on the type or length of course which it recommends. There is only one answer, that the Board should set up its own training establishments, or should amend its first-year training requirements at least until there are facilities for training.
How sophisticated need training be? Up to the present, engineering firms, large and small, have taken on boys as apprentices who have learned as they earned under the direction of an adult craftsman. Most also went to night school for their theoretical training: giving up their own time to learn their trade was no bad thing. That system is dead, and we are struggling to replace it with another at least as effective for producing men with skill and character. But does management know best what skilled personnel it needs? If so, is it entitled to training which is tailor-made for one business, but which may not be useful for others? This is a vital question.
The large engineering firms produce and train craftsmen suitable for themselves, and they get the grant. Can the same privilege be denied the much greater number of small, specialised firms? If it is, and it appears to be, it is equivalent to saying that the small firms must go under, which, as the Americans have proved, is a dangerous trend. To be bouyant, our economy must be based on a proliferation of smaller businesses. That is why the Small Businesses Administration has been set up in the United States and why we intend to set up a small business bureau when returned to power. The small business and manufacturer are important and the small engineering firm must be integrated to train for the purposes of its own business and not for any theoretical national purpose. It would be more to the point if the Board arranged its training syllabus around the smaller rather than the larger firms.
The Board includes the nominees' of the larger companies. They have agreed the levy system which they can afford and they have evolved a grant system conditioned to their companies' existing policies. They have produced a manual of first-year training which is futile for smaller firms—for the majority of them, at least—and which is looked upon by many as an example of the way in which bureaucracies can waste money if they come by it easily. The major part of the £75 million which the Board raises will come from the smaller companies. Ought they not in equity to be represented on the Board?
The Minister has agreed—and I am grateful to him—for his Department to receive a deputation from the Society of Independent Manufacturers, on whose executive committee I sit, and this takes place on Monday of next week. I hope that as a result of our conversations with his Department this matter may be put right. After all, as I have said, if the Engineering Industry Training Board or any other training board does not react to the view and the policy of those who are responsible for financing it, which in this case is the smaller engineering companies, the Minister and Board must expect trouble and lack of co-operation.
We ought not to forget that we lost the American Colonies from 1776 because we insisted on taxation without representa-

tion. The last thing that any of us wants in an industry of this size and importance—and industry which makes the biggest contribution to the economy by way of exports—is trouble or lack of co-operation. The Engineering Industry Training Board should as a matter of course have on it representatives of every class of employer expected to finance the board.
I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the three major points which I have raised because I am sure that they are basic to the working of the Act which both sides of the House have helped to fashion and which both sides of the House wish to see successful in all its aspects and all its objectives.

7.58 a.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): The hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill) started by saying that there was no more important subject than that which he had chosen for debate, even at this late hour. I should be inclined to agree, with one exception—bed, which, I think, is a little more important.
I take the unusual rôle of defending the hon. Member's Front Bench leadership. He passed a rather far-fetched remark about the Industrial Training Act going through without any proper criticism. If I remember correctly, that Bill was criticised and a great deal of work was put into the criticism, but it was one of those happy occasions on which the criticisms from both sides of the House and from industry were of a very constructive character. It would be unfortunate if hon. Members had the idea that it must be hostile criticism involving a Party battle to make it worth while.
The criticism of the Bill of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) was considered. It was one of the happiest experiences of a Committee stage of any Bill in the House. Both sides of industry and of the House and all interested parties took part enthusiastically in trying to make that Bill as good as it could be.
Perhaps the hon. Member did not mean it, but some of his criticisms were sweeping. They are criticisms which have not been brought to the attention of my Ministry to the extent that he brought them. May I emphasise that the Ministry of Labour exercises no bureaucratic control over an industrial training board. The


board conducts its business, and the further I keep away from it, apart from guidance and such help as I can give, the better.
The hon. Gentleman sought to place a halo around the old method of apprenticeship. I understood, in my ignorance, that the biggest criticism made by employers was to the effect that the previous apprenticeship system was out of date and had become too rigid; that the system by which a boy was trained by a skilled workman was not working well because it took too long and that, therefore, the system, particularly in the engineering industry, needed examination with the idea of introducing a better method.
There seems to be come confusion about the grants scheme. Broadly speaking, grants to employers fall under two headings, the general and the supplementary grant. The general grant is based on an employer's performance rating which is, in turn, based on the amount of training he does in relation to his needs and the quality of his training arrangements. In arriving at that performance rating, different weighting are given by the Board to different kinds of training and, to do this, a rather complicated calculation is necessary.
This is the only training board to have adopted this system and it is the result of the Board's attempt—however critical the hon. Gentleman may be; it was an honest attempt—to redistribute from the outset the total cost of training within the indusry which, as he mentioned, is estimated to be about £75 million. This sum is collected by a levy of 2½ per cent. to be distributed to firms in accordance with their performance ratings.
I accept that a valid criticism may exist because of complaints about insufficient information having been given about the way in which these performance ratings are arrived at, with the result that firms are not able to know what kinds of training carry the most weight with the industrial training board. I am informed that the Engineering Industry Training Board has decided, to meet this criticism from industry, to publish in some detail in the near future an explanation of how the scheme works.
The Board pays supplementary fixed grants in respect of certain kinds of training which it particularly wishes to encourage; for example, for students attending sandwich courses and courses for training officers and instructors. In particular, it intends in the grant year which begins on 1st September, 1966, to pay a specific grant of £504 per annum towards the cost of first year off-the-job apprentice training which fully satisfies the Board's requirements. For first year off-the-job training schemes which are otherwise satisfactory, but which do not fully meet the Board's requirements, it will pay 10 guineas per head per week if the training lasts for at least 24 weeks. This is, therefore, the same as for the payment of £504 per annum.
It has been said that this first year training scheme which the Board has set out in great detail is being imposed on the industry without adequate notice and discussion, that there was insufficient consultation with further education interests in drawing up the scheme and that technical colleges have not been given time to provide appropriate educational courses. The Board has said in reply that it is not intended that the scheme should be applied rigidly and that a degree of flexibility of interpretation has been built into it. Firms already operating sound schemes of first year off-the-job training may continue with their present arrangements, but are invited to re-examine them in the light of the Board's proposals.
I want to re-emphasise that the Board is empowered to provide training facilities itself, but it would clearly be impossible for it, particularly at this stage of its development, to provide training places all over the country for off-the-job training by small firms. That would be impossible. But to encourage the provision of first-year off-the-job training by employers—and this is of relevance to the small employer—the Board makes a grant of £150 per annum for five years towards the cost of each additional training place provided.
The Board has also made a start with the provision of its own workshops for the use of small firms, and hopes to make at least 600 extra first-year training places available within the next year. It is also encouraging the formation of more group training schemes for the smaller


firms. Sixteen new schemes have been launched, and 18 others are in varying stages of development.
The Board has been praised as well as criticised by people in the industry for the way in which it has tackled the training of apprentices. I think that the Board is to be commended for taking a bold step forward in its scheme for the first-year training of apprentices on a much wider basis than at present, to be followed in subsequent years of apprenticeship by methods of training adapted to the ability and aptitude of the individual and the requirements of the firm. Experience may show that modifications to the scheme are needed, but it is also clear that much time would have been lost, perhaps to little purpose, if the Board had engaged in protracted consultations with the many different sections of the industry, and had delayed the introduction of the scheme until everyone in the industry felt ready to operate it.
The Board is giving its attention to an assessment of the manpower and training requirements of the industry, but this is clearly a long-term process, requiring an appraisal of the information supplied by employers about the number and occupations of those already employed in the industry. The Board has rightly decided that it ought not to hold up its training recommendations until it has carried out a full survey of probable future training needs.
I should like to say something about the representation of small firms on the Board. I read with interest the report of the meetings at Croydon, and I understand what is in the hon. Member's mind. I understand that there is some feeling on the matter. One of the members of the Board—Mr. Lomax—is the director of a company employing only about 300 workers. It is very difficult to have a representative Board, but the small firms at least are represented, and it would be difficult to give them greater representation without upsetting the balance of the Board. There has been, as the hon. Gentleman says, criticism about the suitability of the Board's training recommendations and its grant scheme to small firms.
With the recruitment of additional training staff, the Board has been able greatly to extend its contacts with indivi-

dual firms in the industry, and to acquaint itself with their views.
The Board informs me that it is very conscious of the problems of devising training recommendations appropriate to firms of every size and will keep this matter very much in mind in considering amendments to its existing training and grant schemes. I have taken the point made by the hon. Member. He is not the only one who feels concern about the vast number of small firms which must not be discouraged or depressed in this exercise. I assure him that I will take note of what has been said.
Of course, there are many teething troubles. This is an unexplored area. The vast engineering industry is so diverse in its set-up that inevitably there will be growing pains during the early years, but we hope to arrive at satisfactory conclusions.

PLANNING POWERS, HAVERHILL

8.11 a.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for staying to this late hour. He and I have been up all night, but I think that he will agree that the subject I am to raise is of considerable importance, and not just of local importance. It arises out of the change in the method of granting alterations in development plans brought in by the Ministry's Circular 70 of 19th October, 1965.
That circular made a considerable advance by giving much greater latitude to local planning authorities. This is something which nearly all of us welcome, but in the case which concerns me as a result of this procedure is that the local planning authority has been enabled to do something which I think it should not have been able to do. As I understand Circular 70, it virtually gives three categories of changes in development. The first is where there is no substantial change and the local planning authority can go ahead without reference to the Minister. The second is where there is a substantial change and local authorities have to advertise the application and can go ahead if the Minister makes no objection in a specified period.
The case I am submitting falls in the third category, where there is considerable deviation from the plan which is either not in accord with something laid down by the Minister or there are two views expressed by a Government Department, or the proposal is of a character which would affect the whole of a neighbourhood.
The Minister goes on to say that if the proposal affects a whole neighbourhood certain criteria should be borne in mind. One is:
any proposals for a large industrial installation or a major new shopping centre".
The proposal in this case affects 36 acres of agricultural land to be changed to industrial use. Another criterion is:
any proposal for development of significance in a national park, a green belt, or an area of great landscape, scientific or historic value".
This is an area of outstanding natural beauty. I hope that I can convince the Parliamentary Secretary that the third category is clearly one which applies. For the third category it is the local authority's duty to advertise the proposal locally and to send a copy of the advertisement and the application with plans to the Minister. It is also required to send a statement of the issues involved and, when the period for objections is over, copies of any which may have been received and to wait for a further 31 days in the absence of any objection from the Minister.
Haverhill is a small town in the constituency of Bury St. Edmunds and has been for some time extending in a messy way. It is one of the worst examples of overspill I have ever seen, but, nevertheless, in expanding it involves my constituency and affects Cambridgeshire and Essex. For example, there is only one road from Haverhill further on into Suffolk. All the others run into Cambridgeshire or Essex.
We are waiting at the moment for the Minister's decision on an application to building 120 houses in the village of Steeple Bumpstead, where I live, designed to help with the housing of executives on the industrial estate. Therefore, anything that happens in Haverhill is of vital concern to Cambridgeshire and Essex. This was recognised from the start, because the Haverhill town map

was agreed with the Essex County Council.
The development runs right up to the boundary near the village of Sturmer, which is familiar to all those who grow apples. Indeed, so close to the line does it come that if the hon. Gentleman will look at the map which I see he has in front of him he will see a field there most of which is in West Suffolk and the rest in Essex. The Essex corner is left out and goodness knows what one will be able to use it for if this goes through. The Essex County Council, the Halstead Rural District Council and the Sturmer Parish Council all objected to this proposal. I want to know were these objections sent to the Ministry and if so, what consideration was given to them?
The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, who is also a Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, wrote to me on 21st July and said:
In the case you mention West Suffolk County Council referred the application to the Minister as a substantial departure from the Haverhill Town Map.
He did not say whether the objections had been referred to the Ministry. The letter goes on:
It seemed right to allow the County Council to decide this matter after taking account of the views of local residents and the neighbouring planning authority whom they were obliged to consult.
Now it is claimed by the neighbouring planning authority that it was never consulted at all. The Parliamentary Secretary will have seen a letter from the county council, dated 1st August, which makes it quite plain that it was not consulted and that if it had been it would have put forward very strong views on this proposed development.
I have here a letter from the Chairman of the Sturmer Parish Council, who is also on the Halstead Rural District Council. He says:
I can assure you that neither the Sturmer Parish Council, Halstead Rural District Council or Essex Planning were consulted and the only intimation of this development known to these bodies was a notice in the local paper.
I submit that whatever might have been the intention of the Ministry when it changed the system of planning consents in this way, it surely can never have been intended that in a case where the interests of a neighbouring planning


authority are absolutely vitally concerned one planning authority can go ahead without any consultation with the other at all.
What I would like to hear from the hon. Gentleman, first, is why the Minister of Housing and Local Government has not decided not to intervene in this matter despite the fact that there is this very strong opposing interest, and secondly, whether the objections raised by all the local authorities and by other bodies such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England were one of the factors which decided the Minister not to intervene in this way.
I do not wish to indulge in a brawl between Essex and West Suffolk County Councils, but I must tell the Minister that there is a good deal of feeling in Essex about the way in which this has been done and that if this is the result of the new system—and the new system is a good deal worse than the old from these points of view—I hope that the Minister can tell me that his Department will intervene in this case and have another look at it.

8.20 a.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds) rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Does the hon. Member wish to speak?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful, at this hour of the morning, to have an opportunity to speak about my constituency, because the town of——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member. I was trying to protect the rights of hon. Members who have been here all night. If the hon. Member has been here all night, I apologise to him.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Haverhill lies in my constituency and I am, therefore, grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) for raising this matter. He has shown how assiduous he is in standing up for the rights and the needs of Essex and his own constituency. I hope that he will accept that I shall be no less assiduous in standing up for the rights and necessities of my own.
I agree with my hon. Friend on the two or three points he made at the beginning of his speech that anything that happens in Haverhill certainly affects Essex and Cambridgeshire and, perhaps, affects the areas for which he speaks more than it affects the County of West Suffolk. Secondly, I am bound to accept, also, that the planning to which my hon. Friend has referred seems to fall within category three of the Ministry's circular of last year. I have no doubt about that. To apply to Haverhill, however, the term of "messy" and to say that it is one of the worst examples of overspill development does not accord with the facts.
Haverhill has a lot of problems. It is a town which has grown exceptionally rapidly. A few years ago it was merely 4,000 people, clustered in a valley more or less around one large industry. Today, it is 10,000 strong, intending to go on in 1971 to a total of 18,000 and beyond that, by a recent decision, to perhaps as many as 30,000 by 1981. This expansion has brought some impressive progress.
If one looks at the High Street of Haverhill, the new shops, the industrial estate with its new factories and the new council chamber, where I have had the pleasure of addressing the local council, one cannot help feeling the pride that Haverhill feels in the growth which it has achieved. There is an ambition to become a considerable town in Haverhill. The most important thing, of course, is the new houses that have been put up for families coming from London, families who, in many cases, have left slums and have been given a new opportunity of a wider and a more spacious life in the East Anglian countryside. Having recognised, however, the progress that has been made and, I hope, will continue to be made in Haverhill, I must accept what my hon. Friend has said, namely, that this progress has brought a large number of problems.
These are planners' problems, and I hope that the Minister will recognise that this planning point needs to be tackled urgently. Haverhill is suffering in its growth from too much speed and from a lack of balance. The speed I understand. Under the Greater London Council's arrangements for town expansion, there is always the pressure to put up more and more houses more and more


rapidly, but this turn of speed sometimes means that the houses are not always of the highest quality. Indeed, on the Clements Estate, where houses are now being built rapidly, there is a lot of inadequate construction with which the people living there are not satisfied. I hope, as the borough council intends to achieve, that these problems are put right before the winter months set in again.
There is also a lack of balance in Haverhill. It probably is the inevitable result of too great speed. There is a lack of balance between the old Haverhill and the new, between the enormous number of council houses and the comparative lack of private houses, between the rapid growth of population and the far less rapid provision of social amenities and economic opportunities. This lack of balance indicates a lack of co-ordination between the planning authorities, both local, as my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden has mentioned, and nationally as between the various Ministries concerned.
I draw the Minister's attention to just two aspects of this. First, there is the lack of amenities for the new population that has come to Haverhill. Of course, we understand that schools will be crowded when young families arrive with large numbers of children. But there is at least one school in Haverhill with no fewer than 900 children, where the facilities are quite inadequate. I am very glad that the headmaster, instead of sitting down under the problems, has tackled them and is tackling them well. Nevertheless, he is facing a tide of children coming into the town.
Then there is the problem of no hospital. I recently gave the Minister of Health a petition signed by about 3,000 people in Haverhill, a large proportion of a town of that size, pleading for hospital facilities. I quite understand the Minister's answer that it is not possible to provide a general district hospital in a town of that size, and that there are, in any event, large hospitals in Essex, Cambridge and Suffolk to which the people of Haverhill are elegible to go.
Nevertheless, here is a town with a rapid birth rate—indeed the birth rate in Haverhill is very much higher than anywhere else in the Eastern counties.

In addition, with industries growing there are more and more industrial accidents requiring hospitalisation. Haverhill people, therefore, worry about the lack of medical facilities. They are also concerned about a lack of adequate recreational grounds.
Where there is a rapidly growing town it is the responsibility of the planning authorities to see that all the many things that go to make up a new community—schools, hospitals, buses, shops and so on—are brought together by some coordinating authority which tries to get them into balance.
In addition, I must mention a shortage of jobs in Haverhill. I believe that this shortage will get worse over the next year or so as a result of the deflationary measures that the Government are taking. But the problem in Haverhill is a special one. We are getting large numbers of people, but we are not so far getting the new factories that are necessary to provide them with employment. Last winter, about 140 people in Haverhill were unemployed; and I think that there will be more this year.
Moreover, many young men are having to travel as far as Cambridge, Colchester and even back to London to find the employment that they need. It is disappointing to a young family coming to Suffolk from the centre of London to find on arrival, with a new home and all the excitement of a new opportunity, that the employment pattern is not adequate for the population.
Turning to the planning point which my hon. Friend raised, I cannot myself speak on behalf of the West Suffolk County Council, but I know the planning officer, Mr. Gorst, and the clerk, Mr. Skinner, very well, and I find it very hard to believe that they failed in their duty in consulting or at least informing the surrounding authorities. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this point, because it would be out of character if West Suffolk had failed to consult.
The point I wish to leave with the Minister today is not that we need more consultation between planners, but rather that we need a much greater co-ordination among them in the things they do and not simply in the things they talk about.
Haverhill now proposes to go to a population of 30,000 by 1981. I myself find this a very daring decision and, perhaps, one which sets a pace which is too fast in present circumstances. For Haverhill lacks raw materials. Its transport pattern is poor. The roads are limited. The railway is threatened with closure. There is a comparatively small market for firms seeking to come to the area. In these circumstances, it is all the more important for the planning authorities to get together locally, regionally and nationally.
It is important that Haverhill should stay very close to the West Suffolk County Council in its plans for expansion. It is more important that the West Suffolk County Council should work with the Essex and Cambridgeshire authorities in planning the use of land in this area. If there has been, as my hon. Friend says, a lack of co-ordination in the permissions given in the particular area to which he refers, I certainly regret it. I hope that it will be possible to ensure that it does not happen again.
But at the national level—the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry is, in the end, responsible—what the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is doing is not always known to the other Ministries concerned. Haverhill has no hospital. The Ministry of Health should have been in consultation with the housing and local government people on that problem. The railway is to be closed. Has the Ministry of Transport been in consultation with the right hon. Gentleman's Department about that? There are not enough jobs and firms. Industrial development certificates are difficult to get. Does the D.E.A. consult the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on that?
It is not just a matter of giving the local authorities more powers to take more land and build more houses. What is important is to see that all the Ministries and the authorities concerned both locally and nationally come together to achieve all the things that are necessary to make a real town instead of each dealing in isolation with one narrow point, such as the change of user of a particular piece of land. I know that the Minister will wish to deal with this wider problem as well as with the question of apparent

lack of consultation between local authorities which my hon. Friend, quite rightly, has raised.

8.32 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I thank the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) for the courteous way in which he introduced this subject, which, I realise, is a difficult local matter for him. The way the hon. Gentleman put it in his speech accords with the information we have in the Department. I shall spend a little time in explaining the position of my right hon. Friend and the Department and why they thought it right that this matter should be left to the local authority rather than be subject to Whitehall's intervention. Before I do that, however, I shall comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths).
The hon. Member widened the debate considerably. I do not blame him for that. It is a subject in which I have a particular interest, because my right hon. Friend has given me certain responsibilities which I was glad to accept, for new and expanded towns, linking with my responsibility for housing programming generally. It may be of interest to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and his hon. Friend to know that during the last three months I have visited almost all the new towns, and that I am now in process of visiting some of the expanded towns.
One thing I have learned—if I did not know it before—is that the relationship between the local authority and, in the case of new towns, the development corporation, or in the case of expanded towns, the exporting authority, is often very bad. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that close liason between all those interested in these areas is long overdue.
The hon. Gentleman was right to remind the House of the facts in Haverhill. But, first, let us get our priorities right. I am sure that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden will support me when I say that this area is one that has given happiness and joy to thousands of Londoners who were living in shocking slums and had no chance of decent housing conditions in their own right. I happen to know that, in spite of some of


the criticisms which have been voiced, this is one of the efforts in which the G.L.C. has been interested. It is a credit to the way in which housing is being provided.
The trouble in all these areas is that it is very difficult to keep housing in pace with industry. I came back only yesterday from a whole day in King's Lynn, for example, and there we have the position that houses are empty because industry has not caught up. That is not necessarily the local authority's fault; it came about partly because private industry has not taken up the options that it had and partly because the local authority went charging ahead and built the houses. However, I hope that what we did yesterday may have eased the position. The cry for co-ordination is obvious between all those concerned.
I promise the hon. Member for Saffron Walden that I will deal with his points, but the argument about Haverhill and the future of the town is so important that I want to concentrate on that for a moment. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds pointed out that the provision of amenities is essential when we talk of new development, whether it be in a new town or in an expanded town. After three of four months' experience, I hold the view that the decision to provide amenities must come from the local authority. It must come from the people who are the elected representatives in the area.
What I have had to do is convince some local authorities, particularly in the new town areas, that this is their job. They tend to regard all development as being done by some outside body and as being no concern of theirs. I have had to explain that new towns, for example, at some stage will belong to their inhabitants and that the amenities which are being provided are things in which they have a vital interest. Every new house which is built creates rate increases for the authority, and it is their job to spend that money wisely and well, not only for the present but future generations and to make suggestions for amenities. It is for the development corporation or exporting authority to consider, if necessary, making a donation for the purpose of those amenities.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the ex-

porting authority frequently makes quite generous donations. But so often the donations are related to the hardware of expansion—the schools, roads and things of that kind. But it is the software—the recreation ground and the library—which cannot be afforded by a small place like Haverhill. Some means must be provided by the Central Government for these things.

Mr. Mellish: I do not deny that. I agree that Haverhill would be in a different position from the new towns that I have visited.
The perfect example of co-operation between a corporation, in the case of a new town, and a local authority for the provision of amenities, is Harlow. They got local industry to make a donation, they themselves made a donation and they got a donation from the corporation, so much so that today they have a sports centre which is the finest in Britain. It is something which is of benefit not only to the inhabitants of Harlow, but of the surrounding district. It makes one feel proud to see that sort of initiative, and it is something which I believe can be done by other areas.
So much for the interest which the hon. Gentleman showed in the future of Haverhill. I shall be going to Haverhill, and I will let the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds know when I do. I want to discuss with the local authorities and others interested their problems. If it is practical, I should like to leave behind a liaison committee for the area which will function on a regular basis and on which views will be co-ordinated and exchanged. I hope that that will result in something better for the towns.
The matter which has been raised by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden arises out of the recent decision by the West Suffolk County Council to grant planning permission to Haverhill Urban District Council for the industrial use of 36 acres of farmland at Sturmer Road, Haverhill. This land adjoins the county boundary of Essex. Thirty acres of land required for industrial use on the Haverhill town map have been used for residential development. There was an urgent need for 10 acres to accommodate a substantial firm which the town badly needs, plus a later foreseeable need for


more to replace the land lost to the residential development. The urban district council decided that the Sturmer Road area was suitable and applied for planning permission. The county decided that the development constituted a substantial departure from the provisions of the town map and, as it was bound to do, informed my right hon. Friend that an application was before it. It also advertised the proposal in the local press.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not object to the proposal and my Department thought that were no planning objections. Therefore, we took no action on the application, leaving it to the county to decide. Although there were objections from the Sturmer Parish Council and Halstead Rural District Council, West Suffolk County Council granted permission. Where a local planning authority proposes to grant permission for development it thinks would be likely to affect the area of any neighbouring local planning authority, it is required to consult that authority. In this case, West Suffolk took the view that no consultation was necessary.

Mr. Kirk: But in a letter to me in July the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend said that it had consulted its neighbouring authority, as it was bound to do.

Mr. Mellish: I am giving the facts of the present situation. I understand that the West Suffolk County Council took the view that no consultation was necessary here, although it had received opposition from some of the local authorities.
I have given the general background. It is right that I should recall the procedure introduced in November, 1965. Before 1954, local planning authorities were free to do with departures exactly as they chose but in 1954 the then Minister made a direction requiring authorities to tell him of any applications for permission to carry out development which, in their view, were a substantial departure from the provisions of the development plan. The Minister was given 21 days in which to make up his mind whether to authorise the authority concerned to go ahead, to direct it not to grant permission, to call in the application for his own decision or to direct

it to stay its hand until it heard from him.
In 1965 it was clear that, under these conditions, Whitehall had to consider a great number of applications which were only of importance to the immediate locality and could well be dealt with by the planning authority. My right hon. Friend recognised that substantial departures from a development plan might be important to the neighbours, however, and, therefore, deserved some publicity before a decision was taken. He accordingly issued a new direction which came into operation in November, 1965.
It requires a planning authority to advertise in the local Press any planning proposal that it regards as a substantial departure from the provisions of the development plan and which it is disposed to permit. It must send a copy of the application and of the advertisement to the Minister. A number of categories are covered in these proposals. I understand that the West Suffolk County Council considered that this scheme came within Category B, and when it came to us my right hon. Friend decided that it was a typical case to be decided by the county authority.
Let me put it fairly and honestly. We are often accused of trying to build up empires and take control and remove responsibility at local level. This is a case where my right hon. Friend the Minister took a decision to give to a local authority more power than it has probably ever had before. Yet we have here the perfect example of a situation which always arises in a planning decision—someone is aggrieved and upset. In this instance, two hon. Gentlemen have spoken, one disagreeing with the decision and the other agreeing. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds cannot have it both ways. He said that Haverhill wants industrial development and more firms, and for that it has to have more land. West Suffolk County Council decided that these needs were great and came down in favour of them.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden is saying that in his view, because of the effect that this change of plan may have on other parts of the area, this is something in which the Minister should have intervened. Our


case is that we honestly and sincerely believed that this was a local planning matter, to be decided by the local people and that we honourably delegated the authority to the West Suffolk County Council, which is a very important and authoritative body. We gave it the right to decide this matter, having regard to local needs.
I made the decision which has produced this debate and I can only say, when I look back at this affair, that the one thing which is abundantly clear is that Her Majesty's Government and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government emerge very favourably. The Minister gave the local authority a chance to decide its future, and in that respect I say on his behalf that what he did was the right and proper thing to do.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

GHANA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

8.47 a.m.

Mr. John Cordle: Even at this late hour I can still find it in my heart to say that I am particularly fortunate in being able to speak in this debate and having won the Adjournment ballot. The matter that I have to discuss is of some urgent importance. It concerns the present situation in Ghana.
When, a few months ago, Ghana threw off the yoke of tyranny under which she had laboured for so long, there was real and heartfelt rejoicing through that previously unhappy country. That joy was shared by Ghana's many friends here in Britain, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that this was the happiest news to come out of Africa for a very long time.
Expressions of happiness and support for the new rulers in Ghana are all very well, but in the very difficult situation in which they find themselves, and with the enormous problems they face, something more is needed. Let no one underestimate the tremendous fund of friendship and good will that exists there for Britain. From General Ankrah down to the poorest "Mammy", they truly regard us as a good friend and ally, as I saw for myself when I was there last April.
As the Economist said last week:
'The new rulers of Ghana have, in five short months, shown themselves refreshingly liberal and realistic. In spite of the debts and muddle inherited from Nkrumah the future could turn out well. But Ghana will need help.
Ghana appreciates the real economic troubles that we are facing, and understand that massive financial aid from Britain is out, for the time being anyway. Yet there is one gesture that we could make which would cost us nothing in foreign exchange, and would cost the taxpayer very little in absolute terms, and yet which could be of immense psychological and material value.
The Ghanaian Army is a well-disciplined force, which is playing a key part in the maintenance of law and order in the early days of this new regime. It is largely British-trained, and uses much British equipment. Yet such was the state of the economy when General Ankrah took over that the Army was, and is, desperately short of essential equipment, such as boots, denims, shirts and berets. Stocks of these articles are exhausted, and as yet there is no money in the Ghana treasury to replace them. N.C.O.s and other ranks are having to wear plimsolls instead of boots, and one beret is divided between several men, and the working denims of the majority of the troops are now worn out. In addition, about £5,000 worth of mechanical stores are needed to make some of their military vehicles mobile.
General Ankrah asked Her Majesty's Government for help in the supply of basic equipment, which amounts to only a few thousand pounds. I was told by the Minister for Commonwealth Affairs, on 21st June, that he was "actively considering" General Ankrah's request. Unfortunately, this active consideration must have come up against the granite cliffs of


the Treasury, because on 26th July the righ hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) that he was "unable to comply" with the request and subsequently added that "the problem no longer exists."
This last statement of the Minister's reveals an extraordinary complacency and I believe, a failure to understand the problems and opportunities that Ghana presents. The Minister will be aware that nearly £70 million of British capital is invested in Ghana. He will also be aware that, notwithstanding Ghana's very considerable external debts, she is doing all she can to put her economic house in order. He must be aware of the good will and friendship that exists between our two countries, and yet we have, after a lengthy delay, turned down this very modest request that would cost us virtually nothing.
Our Territorial Army is being halved. Many units are closing down. There must be many thousands of pairs of boots and other items of uniform lying on the quartermaster's shelves throughout the country—equipment that will now be surplus to requirements. What will eventually happen to this equipment? I suspect that in due course we shall see it advertised in the small advertisements in the Saturday newspapers as "Government Surplus Stock" which is to be "Cleared Regardless of Price", and that the firms that specialise in such clearance sales will make a nice profit.
If, instead of this short-sighted parsimony, the Government had seized the opportunity to dispose of this surplus equipment to a Commonwealth friend in real need, what a wonderful gesture this would have been. We all pay lip service to the Commonwealth ideal, and yet it appears all to often that we give aid to countries that lose no opportunity in vilifying us on every possible occasion while our friends have to go short.
Apart from the military equipment there is a desperate need for food and medical supplies. We have given several thousand pounds' worth of drugs, and numbers of British medical staff are giving invaluable help in Ghana, yet this must be compared with the £6 million to £7 million worth of food given by the

Americans and Canadians. I am not suggesting that we can compete at the moment with aid on this scale, but it is relevant as a background to our failure to help with military clothing and spares.
The long and unhappy trials of Mr. Kwesi Armah have also disturbed the relationship between our two countries. Is it not possible for him to be expatriated to Ghana and there face a trial in his own country? Surely we have sufficient faith that justice in Ghana will now be done.
I hope that the Minister's reply on 26th July is not the last word on the matter of military equipment. I am convinced that the cost to us would be negligible, that the good will created would be immense and that, notwithstanding the Minister's comments, the equipment is still needed and would be of great value to the Ghanaian Army.
The recent unhappy events in Nigeria point to the fact that Ghana may be our last stable friend in West Africa. I therefore urge the Minister to match up to the challenge and have the guts to reverse his decision. If this democratic decision were to fail, and General Ankrah were usurped, Ghana would be once more plunged into misery and we would shoulder responsibility for that tragic event. I trust that very serious consideration will be given to the urgent needs of Ghana.

8.56 a.m.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart): I apologise to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) for not being here for his first few opening remarks. I was in a distant part of the building when his name appeared on the annunciation. However, he was kind enough to let me know what points he would raise, so I do not think that I will be handicapped in replying.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned about this question and the general well-being of Ghana. I know this great and beautiful country well. I was hoping recently to be able to visit it again, and I hope that it will not be long before I can do so. I am aware of the friendship and good will there for Britain. I am sure that I speak for the House when I say how much good will and affection we have for the Ghanaian people and that we wish them well.
Following the change of Government in Accra, in February, we have established friendly relations with General Ankrah and the National Liberation Council. The Government have very much at heart the peaceful and fruitful development of Ghana as a nation in the Commonwealth, and we greatly value the friendship of its Government and people. We responded quickly and gladly to the wish of the new Government, when General Ankrah came to power, to resume relations with us. We hope that relations between our countries will continue to be cordial and close. We are, therefore, anxious to help the Government of Ghana in the most useful ways within the limits of our capacity.
When the new Government assumed power they were faced with a formidable volume of commercial debt far beyond their immediate capacity to pay. We took the lead in the international examination of this problem, which was certainly the most immediate and acute facing Ghana. A meeting of the countries concerned was held in London on 1st and 2nd June this year after a good deal of previous discussion with the Ghanaians. The way in which the discussions were handled by the Her Majesty's Government's representatives has been publicly acknowledged by General Ankrah and we continue to take the lead in the resolution of this urgent problem.
Constant discussions are going on through diplomatic channels and we propose to convene another meeting in London in the autumn, at which we hope that a satisfactory arrangement can be made. I need not explain the urgent necessity, for the Ghanaian Government, for a reasonable settlement of this problem. We shall certainly do all we can to work for a fair and equitable arrangement. In this, we shall be making by far the most important contribution open to us at present to help the Government of Ghana with their economic problems.
In addition, we have recently announced our readiness to make available for important electricity distribution schemes £3½ million which is still undrawn from the loan which we provided towards the big Volta hydro-electric project. The use of the money is still under discussion. We also made a gift

of essential drugs which, though not large in itself, met an urgent need at that time. The hon. Member is aware, in addition, and largely as a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development, of the very substantial aid which we have given under technical assistance and also towards the training needs of Ghana's Armed Forces.
I turn to the general question which the hon. Gentleman raised. A gift of military clothing and equipment to Ghana cannot be a simple transfer. This must be clearly understood if we are to appreciate what the problems have been. Even surpluses have a priced value and anything given through the Commonwealth Office would have to be paid for. It is not simply a question of giving away things which would otherwise appear in Army surplus stores; it is a question of costing everything and deciding whether this and that item should be included in the aid which is given. The position was complicated by the fact that this could not be treated as ordinary economic aid.
We considered carefully, and I can say sympathetically, the request for this form of aid, but we came to the conclusion that because of the overriding need for economy in all forms of Government expense we were unable to comply with the Ghanaian request at the time. Certainly, had there been any possibility of our doing so we should have given it a great deal more consideration. But at this point, almost a month ago, we learned that the Ghanaians were successfully covering from their own resources the greater part of these requirements, and it therefore seems that the urgency of their need is no longer as great as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has his own view about what our decision should have been a month ago, but it seems that there is no longer the extreme urgency that there may well have been some weeks ago.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of Kwesi Armah. As he knows——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Kwesi Armah is facing a criminal charge and I do not think that the House should entertain comments on the course of justice in this case.

Mrs. Hart: I was about to say that the hon. Member would not wish me to comment on this case because the matter is now before the courts and, therefore, sub judice.
I assure the hon. Member that we value very highly the good will of the people and Government of Ghana and that we are certainly ready to the full extent that our resources permit to help them in restoring their affairs to a position that will make it possible for them to get ahead in their efforts to regain national prosperity. The Ghanaians appreciate what we have been able to do to help

them. I certainly do not believe that it is true that there has been any damage to our relations with them by our inability to meet them on this particular request for clothing and equipment for their Army. I wish that we had been able to do so, but I believe that they understand the difficulties in which we found ourselves. They have now successfully managed to meet the problems which afflicted them on this matter at the time that the hon. Gentleman raised it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Nine o'clock, a.m.